Skip to content

[NFC][SafeBuffers/BoundsSafety] Fix a test that was broken in conflict merge in #10156 #10175

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 6, 2025

Conversation

ziqingluo-90
Copy link

One count on the number of a diagnostic note got lost during conflict merging in b5b6dce.

This commit fixes it.

…t merging

One count on the number of a diagnostic note got lost during conflict
merging.  This commit fixes it.
@ziqingluo-90 ziqingluo-90 requested a review from a team as a code owner March 5, 2025 22:30
@ziqingluo-90
Copy link
Author

@swift-ci test

@ziqingluo-90
Copy link
Author

This PR introduced the test failure.

@drodriguez
Copy link

@swift-ci please test llvm

@drodriguez
Copy link

(I think LLVM Test Linux Platform is broken in a different way, so that one might still fail)

@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ void cb_cchar_42(const char *__counted_by(42) s);
// expected-note@+1 19{{consider using a safe container and passing '.data()' to the parameter 'p' and '.size()' to its dependent parameter 'count' or 'std::span' and passing '.first(...).data()' to the parameter 'p'}}
void cb_int(int *__counted_by(count) p, size_t count);

// expected-note@+1 33{{consider using a safe container and passing '.data()' to the parameter 'p' and '.size()' to its dependent parameter 'count' or 'std::span' and passing '.first(...).data()' to the parameter 'p'}}
// expected-note@+1 34{{consider using a safe container and passing '.data()' to the parameter 'p' and '.size()' to its dependent parameter 'count' or 'std::span' and passing '.first(...).data()' to the parameter 'p'}}

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You don't need to change it for this PR, but maybe these checks with large counts should be changed to use + so we don't need to update them every time?

@drodriguez drodriguez merged commit e8d6d9e into stable/20240723 Mar 6, 2025
5 checks passed
@drodriguez drodriguez deleted the dev/ziqing/fix-PR-10156 branch March 6, 2025 18:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants