[PATCH] D33826: [clang-tidy] avoid pointer cast to more strict alignment check

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33826#866170, @lebedev.ri wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33826#866161, @JonasToth wrote:
>
> > There is an exception to the general rule (EXP36-C-EX2), stating that the result of `malloc` and friends is allowed to be casted to stricter alignments, since the pointer is known to be of correct alignment.
>
>
> Quote for the reference:
>
> > EXP36-C-EX2: If a pointer is known to be correctly aligned to the target type, then a cast to that type is permitted. There are several cases where a pointer is known to be correctly aligned to the target type. The pointer could point to an object declared with a suitable alignment specifier. It could point to an object returned by aligned_alloc(), calloc(), malloc(), or realloc(), as per the C standard, section 7.22.3, paragraph 1  [ISO/IEC 9899:2011].
>
> For plain `calloc(), malloc(), or realloc()`, i would guess it's related to `max_align_t` / `std::max_align_t` / `__STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__`, which is generally just `16` bytes.


It's a requirement from the C standard that malloc, calloc, and realloc return a suitably-aligned pointer for *any* type.

>> Could you add a testcase for this case, i think there would currenlty be a false positive.
>> 
>> And is there a general way of knowing when the pointer is of correct alignment, or is it necessary to keep a list of functions like `malloc` that are just known? 
>>  If yes, i think it would be nice if this list is configurable (maybe like in cppcoreguidelines-no-malloc, where that functionality could be refactored out).

Agreed, this should be a configurable list, but is should be pre-populated with the listed functions from the CERT standard.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D33826