ziqingluo-90 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticLexKinds.td:943
+def warn_pragma_unsafe_buffer_usage_misorder :
+ExtWarn<"pragma unsafe_buffer_usage used in misorder">,
+ InGroup<IgnoredPragmas>;
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> IIUC `ExtWarn` means it's a warning of the form "warning: XXX is a language
> extension". It's not just a warning that has something to do with language
> extensions, it's a warning that tries to warn the user about the very fact
> that it's an extension. So we should just use `Warning` or `Error`.
>
> Also about wording: we already have a somewhat similar `#pragma
> assume_nonnull`, can we use similar text? And probably prefer `Error` because
> that's what the other pragma uses too:
> ```
> def err_pp_assume_nonnull_syntax : Error<"expected 'begin' or 'end'">;
> def err_pp_double_begin_of_assume_nonnull : Error<
> "already inside '#pragma clang assume_nonnull'">;
> def err_pp_unmatched_end_of_assume_nonnull : Error<
> "not currently inside '#pragma clang assume_nonnull'">;
> def err_pp_include_in_assume_nonnull : Error<
> "cannot %select{#include files|import headers}0 "
> "inside '#pragma clang assume_nonnull'">;
> def err_pp_eof_in_assume_nonnull : Error<
> "'#pragma clang assume_nonnull' was not ended within this file">;
> ```
Fixed!
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp:2379
+ for (auto UnsafeUse : UnsafeUses)
+ if (!DE.isSafeBufferOptOut(SM, UnsafeUse->getBeginLoc()))
+ UnsafeUsesToReport.push_back(UnsafeUse);
----------------
jkorous wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > I believe this check should be performed *much earlier*. It's not about how
> > we display unsafe usages to the user; we can exclude variables from
> > analysis entirely when all their unsafe uses are guarded by the pragma. I
> > suspect that we can drop these gadgets as early as in `findGadgets()` phase
> > (assuming that D140062 causes us to never rely on unsafe gadgets for
> > fixits).
> Let's addres this in a follow-up patch.
I agree to both of you. Moving the check into `UnsafeBufferUsage.cpp` may
depends on this https://reviews.llvm.org/D140062 patch. So I will make it a
follow-up patch.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140179/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140179
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
