[PATCH] D101060: [Analyzer][StdLibraryFunctionsChecker] Describe arg constraints

[Valeriy Savchenko via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

vsavchenko added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints-notes.cpp:32
+    __buf_size_arg_constraint_concrete(buf); // \
+    // expected-note{{The size of the 0th arg should be equal to or less than the value of 10}} \
+    // expected-warning{{}}
----------------
martong wrote:
> vsavchenko wrote:
> > Oof, I do understand that we are devs and enumerate things starting from 0. But this is supposed to be human-readable and humans start counting from 1.
> I've been thinking a lot about this and I see your point. On the other hand, we report warnings to other developers/programmers who are all used to start the indexing from 0, they may find it odd to start from 1. 
> 
> Alas, the string `0th` makes it obvious that we are talking about the first argument, however the string `1st` is ambiguous, even if we start the indexing from 0 or from 1. In this sense, starting from 0 makes less confusion.
I know that we are talking to developers, but no developers say that this is a 0th argument. And IMO the vast majority of developers would think of the argument at index 0 when they read '1st' because most of people are not compiler engineers and don't think of the list of arguments as an array. 
But that is all opinions after all. What is most important is that clang already reports a ton of warnings pointing to a specific argument/parameter by its ordinal number.  Simply grep `DiagnosticsSemaKinds.td` for `ordinal` and see the examples in tests. As you can guess, they all use ordinals starting from **1st**.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D101060/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D101060