[llvm] [libcxx] [flang] [clang] [clang-tools-extra] [compiler-rt] [libc] [Clang] Generate the GEP instead of adding AST nodes (PR #73730)
John McCall via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Dec 15 11:03:13 PST 2023
================
@@ -4073,6 +4221,51 @@ LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitArraySubscriptExpr(const ArraySubscriptExpr *E,
ArrayLV = EmitLValue(Array);
auto *Idx = EmitIdxAfterBase(/*Promote*/true);
+ if (SanOpts.has(SanitizerKind::ArrayBounds)) {
+ // If the array being accessed has a "counted_by" attribute, generate
+ // bounds checking code. The "count" field is at the top level of the
+ // struct or in an anonymous struct, that's also at the top level. Future
+ // expansions may allow the "count" to reside at any place in the struct,
+ // but the value of "counted_by" will be a "simple" path to the count,
+ // i.e. "a.b.count", so we shouldn't need the full force of EmitLValue or
+ // similar to emit the correct GEP.
+ const LangOptions::StrictFlexArraysLevelKind StrictFlexArraysLevel =
+ getLangOpts().getStrictFlexArraysLevel();
+
+ if (const auto *ME = dyn_cast<MemberExpr>(Array);
+ ME &&
+ ME->isFlexibleArrayMemberLike(getContext(), StrictFlexArraysLevel) &&
+ ME->getMemberDecl()->hasAttr<CountedByAttr>()) {
+ RecordDecl *RD = ME->getMemberDecl()
+ ->getDeclContext()
+ ->getOuterLexicalRecordContext();
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
How is the first example supposed to work? Is the expectation that `__counted_by` will only be enforced if the access expression happens to previously pass through some instance of `A`, and it better be the instance we have in mind? What happens if I just do `someB->member`?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73730
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list