aaron.ballman added inline comments.

================
Comment at: 
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/misc-redundant-expression.cpp:114
   if (P.a[X++] != P.a[X++]) return 1;
+  if (X && X++ && X) return 1;
 
----------------
alexeyr wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > What do you think about the following?
> > ```
> > bool foo(int&);
> > bool bar();
> > 
> > int i;
> > if (foo(i) && bar() && foo(i)) return 1;
> > ```
> > I think that this should not be warned on (under the assumption that the 
> > reference variable can be modified by the call and thus may or may not be 
> > duplicate), but didn't see a test covering it.
> > 
> > It also brings up an interesting question about what to do if those were 
> > non-const pointers rather than references, because the data being pointed 
> > to could be modified as well.
> > 
> > (If you think this should be done separately from this review, that's 
> > totally fine by me, it looks like it would be an issue with the original 
> > code as well.)
> > 
> > One thing that is missing from this review are tests for the overloaded 
> > operator functionality.
> This is actually handled correctly, by the same logic as `(X && X++ && X)`, 
> so I don't think it needs a separate test. The drawback is that:
> 
> 1. it's too conservative, `X && bar() && X` isn't warned on either, because I 
> don't know a way to check that `bar()` doesn't have side effects //on `X`// 
> and so just test `HasSideEffects` 
> (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60035219/check-which-variables-can-be-side-effected-by-expression-evaluation-in-clang-ast).
> 
> 2. the original code does have the same issue and I didn't fix it, so `foo(X) 
> && foo(X)` and `X++ && X++` do get a warning. 
> 
> I'll add overloaded operator tests.
Okay, that seems reasonable to me, thank you!


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D73775/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D73775



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to