steakhal added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/out-of-bounds-false-positive.c:34
+
+void symbolic_uint_and_int0(unsigned len) {
+ (void)a[len + 1]; // no-warning
----------------
martong wrote:
> steakhal wrote:
> > martong wrote:
> > > Hmm, this seems to be quite redundant with the `size_t` tests. Why is it
> > > not enough to have test for one unsigned type?
> > > Are you trying to check for overflow errors? Then I'd expect to have
> > > indexes around UINT_MAX and so on.
> > >
> > > Same comment applies to the tests with the signed types.
> > In the current implementation - and in any implementation of the checker
> > logic will have to deal with //integral-promotion// during the
> > //simplification// of the //array indexer expression// and the given
> > //extent//.
> > All of these can have different signess and bitwidth which makes the
> > implementation quite tricky.
> >
> > In fact, this resulted in the bug, which this patch-stack aims to fix.
> > I'm gonna highlight the related parts in the refactoring patch if you think
> > it helps.
> Okay, makes sense.
>
> It's just very painful to have code repetitions, even in the test code. In
> gtest unittests we can have tests with type parameters to avoid this kind of
> repetition. But I guess, there is no way to get rid of this repetition in lit
> tests.
You can imagine duplicating all of this several times, since the constant in
the subscript expression could also have different types, such as: `unsigned`,
`long`, `unsigned long`, etc. Potentially uncovering bugs.
However, I was reluctant to add those as well :|
I could introduce a macro, to expand these - but IMO macros in tests ehh.
probably reduces readability.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86870/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86870
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
