Fix a couple bugs in the way we handle array indexes in array bounds checking. Specifically, make sure we don't ignore explicit casts in indexes, and make sure we use unsigned extension/comparisons on indexes. Fixes <rdar://problem/10916006>.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@151569 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp b/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
index e963065..3d9f5b3 100644
--- a/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
+++ b/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
@@ -4440,7 +4440,7 @@
void Sema::CheckArrayAccess(const Expr *BaseExpr, const Expr *IndexExpr,
const ArraySubscriptExpr *ASE,
bool AllowOnePastEnd, bool IndexNegated) {
- IndexExpr = IndexExpr->IgnoreParenCasts();
+ IndexExpr = IndexExpr->IgnoreParenImpCasts();
if (IndexExpr->isValueDependent())
return;
@@ -4486,15 +4486,15 @@
}
if (size.getBitWidth() > index.getBitWidth())
- index = index.sext(size.getBitWidth());
+ index = index.zext(size.getBitWidth());
else if (size.getBitWidth() < index.getBitWidth())
- size = size.sext(index.getBitWidth());
+ size = size.zext(index.getBitWidth());
// For array subscripting the index must be less than size, but for pointer
// arithmetic also allow the index (offset) to be equal to size since
// computing the next address after the end of the array is legal and
// commonly done e.g. in C++ iterators and range-based for loops.
- if (AllowOnePastEnd ? index.sle(size) : index.slt(size))
+ if (AllowOnePastEnd ? index.ule(size) : index.ult(size))
return;
// Also don't warn for arrays of size 1 which are members of some