sgatev accepted this revision.
sgatev added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowAnalysisContext.h:176-177
+ /// Returns true if the constraints of the flow condition identified by
+ /// `Token` is always true.
+ bool flowConditionIsTautology(AtomicBoolValue &Token);
----------------
================
Comment at:
clang/unittests/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowAnalysisContextTest.cpp:144
+TEST_F(DataflowAnalysisContextTest, FlowConditionTautologies) {
+ // Default flow condition with empty/no constraints is always true.
+ auto &FC1 = Context.makeFlowConditionToken();
----------------
================
Comment at:
clang/unittests/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowAnalysisContextTest.cpp:151
+ Context.addFlowConditionConstraint(FC2,
+ Context.getOrCreateNegationValue(FC1));
+ EXPECT_FALSE(Context.flowConditionIsTautology(FC2));
----------------
I don't think this is doing what the comment above it says. We probably
shouldn't add flow conditions directly as constraints because this isn't
tracking flow condition dependencies. I suggest removing this case and keeping
the one with `FC5`.
================
Comment at:
clang/unittests/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowAnalysisContextTest.cpp:154
+
+ // FC1 || !FC1 is always true.
+ EXPECT_TRUE(
----------------
Again, I suggest removing this case. The one with `FC6` should suffice.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124943/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124943
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
