[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

sousajo created this revision. Herald added subscribers: PiotrZSL, carlosgalvezp, arphaman, kbarton, xazax.hun, nemanjai. Herald added a reviewer: njames93. Herald added a project: All. sousajo requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: clang-tools-extra. Herald added a subscriber:

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

PiotrZSL added a comment. Good, just verify that documentation for this check is still proper, and add entry in release notes about this change. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624 ___ c

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

PiotrZSL accepted this revision. PiotrZSL added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commi

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

sousajo added a comment. hi @PiotrZSL, thanks for the review :) can you please land it for me? Jorge Pinto Sousa CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-com

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

carlosgalvezp added a comment. What about the use case of privately inheriting `std::array`, and overriding the `operator[]` there with bounds check? Would it be possible to check only _public_ inheritance? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624/new/ https://reviews.llvm

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

sousajo added a comment. In D156624#4545107 , @PiotrZSL wrote: > Good, just verify that documentation for this check is still proper, and add > entry in release notes about this change. I missed those, I will sure ^^ In D156624#4545117

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

PiotrZSL added a comment. In D156624#4545170 , @sousajo wrote: > Good point, I cannot think of an _easy_ way to check it. I think you can do something like this: Finder->addMatcher( cxxOperatorCallExpr( hasOverloadedOperatorName("[]"),

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

sousajo updated this revision to Diff 553062. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624 Files: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines/ProBoundsConstantArrayIndexCheck.cpp clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst clang-tools-

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

sousajo added a comment. @PiotrZSL @carlosgalvezp can you please recheck? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.or

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

PiotrZSL accepted this revision. PiotrZSL added a comment. LGTM Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.l

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

sousajo added a comment. thanks for the review. can you please land it for me pls? Jorge Pinto Sousa Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156624 ___ cfe-c

[PATCH] D156624: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG41818ce150fd: [clang-tidy] Access checks not done classes derived of std::array (authored by sousajo, committed by PiotrZSL). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://rev