steakhal added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:200-204
+ } else {
+ // [ First ]------>
+ // [ Second ]--->
+ // MIN^
+ // The First range is entirely inside the Second one.
----------------
Might be `First->To() == Second->To()`. In this case the comment is not
completely accurate.
================
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};
----------------
ASDenysPetrov wrote:
> steakhal wrote:
> > ASDenysPetrov wrote:
> > > steakhal wrote:
> > > > Shouldn't you use `sizeof(BaseType) * CHAR_BIT` instead?
> > > Agree. It's better to avoid magic numbers. I'll fix.
> > It's not only that but just imagine testing a clang on a special hardware
> > where they have let's say 9 bit bytes, for parity or something similar
> > stuff.
> > The test would suddenly break.
> > Although I suspect there would be many more things to break TBH xD
> I am always skeptical about using`CHAR_BIT`, beacuse it represents bit number
> in `char`. And what if it would be 16 for instance (aka 2 bytes). But my
> intention is to get an amount of bits for a particular type. And I want
> something to represent a number of bits in a byte as a fundamental unit, but
> not something that depends on a `char` size on a particular platform.
> I would better introduce something like `constexpr size_t BITS_IN_BYTE = 8;`.
[[ https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.memobj#footnote-22 | basic.memobj 6.7.1/22 ]]:
>The number of bits in a byte is reported by the macro `CHAR_BIT` in the
>header `<climits>`.
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
