martong added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:908 + // into subexpressions of Sym. + Visit(Sym)); } ---------------- vsavchenko wrote: > martong wrote: > > Alright. So, this is correct because `Visit` boils down finally to either > > `infer(Sym->getType)` or to `VisitBinaryOperator`. And both of them do a > > correct over-approximation of the ranges. Please confirm. > > > > First, I was a bit concerned b/c it is not immediate and not documented > > here. And it is easy to think by the first look that this might be faulty > > if we take the approximation of one operand of a binop that might not be > > true for the whole binop expression. Again, that is not the case because we > > approximate only in case of such ops where we can do a correct > > over-approximation (i.e. `|`, `&` and `%`). > > > > My point is, I'd like to see more explanatory comments here. > I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your point here. > > Everything that this solver provides is conservative ranges, from whatever > source it comes. If you intersect two conservative ranges, you get a > conservative range. > It doesn't matter what we do in `Visit` as long as it is correct. If `Visit` > is incorrect then the previous version of this code that gave preference to > some sources over the other ones was also incorrect. Thanks for your reply. So, with other words, I didn't see why it is immediate that a range for a sub-expression is a good approximation for the whole expression. Maybe it's just me, but that's not obvious until one checks that what exactly happens in `Visit`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D105436/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D105436 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
