vsavchenko added a comment.
In D95877#2542578 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95877#2542578>, @RedDocMD wrote:
> @vsavchenko, after some experimentation, I found out that handling
> reinterpret_cast will be a real pain. Consider the following:
>
> struct Base {
> int field;
> };
>
> struct Derived : public Base {};
>
> struct DoubleDerived : public Derived {};
>
> struct Some {};
>
> void f() {
> int DoubleDerived::* ddf = &Base::field;
> int Base::* bf = reinterpret_cast<int Base::*>(reinterpret_cast<int
> Derived::*>(reinterpret_cast<int Base::*>(ddf)));
> int Some::* sf = reinterpret_cast<int Some::*>(ddf);
> Base base;
> base.*bf;
> }
>
> The definition of `bf` can be handled I guess by manually discovering when to
> insert a sub-class or when to remove. It will require a bit of code but I
> guess is doable.
> As for the next one, also it has to be manually worked out whether it makes
> sense to process this statement further and add a node to the Exploded Graph.
> For the example I gave I don't think it makes a lot of sense. Multiple
> inheritance will make the task a lot worse as far as I can tell.
> Should I try to achieve this in another commit? What are your thoughts on
> this?
Yes, another commit is fine. However, I'd say that it is still good to add
test cases with TODOs with this commit.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BasicValueFactory.cpp:27
#include <cstdint>
+#include <list>
#include <utility>
----------------
We don't need this anymore :)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95877/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95877
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
