martong added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/SimpleSValBuilder.cpp:1155-1156 - // TODO: Support SymbolCast. Support IntSymExpr when/if we actually - // start producing them. ---------------- ASDenysPetrov wrote: > ASDenysPetrov wrote: > > vsavchenko wrote: > > > ASDenysPetrov wrote: > > > > vsavchenko wrote: > > > > > Do we actually produce them? > > > > You can met SymbolCast here if `evalCast` produced it. > > > > See `SValBuilder::evalCastSubKind(nonloc::SymbolVal...)`: > > > > ``` > > > > if (!Loc::isLocType(CastTy)) > > > > if (!IsUnknownOriginalType || !CastTy->isFloatingType() || > > > > T->isFloatingType()) > > > > return makeNonLoc(SE, T, CastTy); > > > > ``` > > > > Also my patch will produce a lot of integral cast symbols D103096. You > > > > are welcome to examine it. > > > In my comment I meant `IntSymExpr` > > Oh, anyway :-) > I think we should remove **ConcreteInt** and and as a consequence > **IntSymExpr**, **SymIntExpr** in the nearest future. SymbolVal should be > reworked to store a QualType, a RangeSet and an expression pointer itself. > IMO SymSymExpr and SymbolVal is sufficient to make any calculations. It may > help generalize a lot of them. **ConcreteInt** is just a special case for > SymbolVal. More than that **PointerToMember** can be removed as well, because > we would get an info being a pointer to member from QualType in this way. > Do we actually produce them? Yes we produce `IntSymExpr`s. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/SimpleSValBuilder.cpp:1170-1172 + SVal LHS = getConst(S->getLHS()); + if (LHS.isUndef()) + LHS = Visit(S->getLHS()); ---------------- vsavchenko wrote: > It seems like a very common pattern now: > ``` > SVal Const = getConst(Expr); > if (Const.isUndef()) > return Visit(Expr); > return Const; > ``` > > At least we can make a function out of this, so we don't repeat this pattern > over and over. > But I was thinking more radically to actually replace `Visit` with this, what > do you think? Good idea! ================ Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/simplify-complex-constraints.cpp:25-27 + if (x + (y + z) != 0) + return 0; + if (y + z != 0) ---------------- vsavchenko wrote: > Since it's not really specific to addition, maybe we can have tests for other > operators? Ok, I've added a new test, and modified a bit this test. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D103317/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D103317 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
