NoQ accepted this revision.
NoQ added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
What i was trying to say with my last comment is that i guess i'd rather go for
option (1) because with that `getRange()` remains the single source of truth,
which is comfy.
I agree this shouldn't really be blocking the patch - sorry for stalling! - i'm
hopefully slowly getting better at not stalling.
Generally i would have went for saving some memory and expensive ImmutableMap
lookups by canonicalizing the key as much as possible.
Do we want to add the opposite test
void effective_range_2(int m, int n) {
assert(m - n <= 0);
assert(n - m <= 0);
clang_analyzer_eval(m - n == 0); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
expected-warning{{FALSE}}
clang_analyzer_eval(n - m == 0); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
expected-warning{{FALSE}}
}
...where the `FALSE` case corresponds to `m - n == INT_MIN`?
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:483
+
+ // If we have range set sotred for both A - B and B - A then calculate the
+ // effective range set by intersecting the range set for A - B and the
----------------
`sotred` -> `stored` :)
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55007/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55007
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
