steakhal added a comment.
I still need to chew through the code but on a high level, I think it looks
correct.
PS: the test coverage is outstanding! F19575968: unite-patch-line-coverage.zip
<https://reviews.llvm.org/F19575968>
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:149
+
+RangeSet RangeSet::Factory::unite(RangeSet Original, llvm::APSInt Point) {
+ return unite(Original, Range(ValueFactory.getValue(Point)));
----------------
Why do you take `APSInt`s by value? Generally, we take them by reference.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/StaticAnalyzer/RangeSetTest.cpp:81
const llvm::APSInt &from(BaseType X) {
- llvm::APSInt Dummy = Base;
- Dummy = X;
- return BVF.getValue(Dummy);
+ static llvm::APSInt Base{sizeof(BaseType) * 8,
+ std::is_unsigned<BaseType>::value};
----------------
Shouldn't you use `sizeof(BaseType) * CHAR_BIT` instead?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99797/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99797
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
