C++: Better fix for void type on buffer access
#2900
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Fixes issue https://github.com/github/codeql-c-analysis-team/issues/20 This change undoes the workaround in #2736, and replaces it with a fix for the underlying cause. The problem was that the IR construction code for side effects incorrectly assumed that `BufferAccessOpcode` included `SizedBufferAccessOpcode`. I think that was actually a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, so I changed the `Opcode` hierarchy to make it true.
jbj
previously approved these changes
Feb 24, 2020
jbj
approved these changes
Mar 2, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes github/codeql-c-analysis-team#20
This change undoes the workaround in #2736, and replaces it with a fix for the underlying cause. The problem was that the IR construction code for side effects incorrectly assumed that
BufferAccessOpcodeincludedSizedBufferAccessOpcode. I think that was actually a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, so I changed theOpcodehierarchy to make it true.