================
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+namespace std {
+ template<typename T, unsigned size>
+ struct array {
+ T operator[](unsigned i) {
+ return T{1};
+ }
+ T at(unsigned i) {
+ return T{1};
+ }
+ };
+
+ template<typename T>
+ struct unique_ptr {
+ T operator[](unsigned i) {
+ return T{1};
+ }
+ };
+
+ template<typename T>
+ struct span {
+ T operator[](unsigned i) {
+ return T{1};
+ }
+ };
+} // namespace std
+
+namespace json {
+ template<typename T>
+ struct node{
+ T operator[](unsigned i) {
+ return T{1};
+ }
+ };
+} // namespace json
+
+
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s cppcoreguidelines-avoid-bounds-errors %t
+std::array<int, 3> a;
----------------
leunam99 wrote:
As suggested, we added a test where the object is a template parameter and the
method is called once with a class that has `at()` and once with a class that
has not, but we are not sure what the best behaviour is. Should we
- not warn, because the fix suggested in the message will lead the other
instantiation to not compile?
- warn at the place that requires the template instantiation?
- keep the warning and add the name of the class of the object / the template
parameters that lead to the message?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90043
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
