NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngineC.cpp:423
@@ +422,3 @@
+
+ if (!val.isZeroConstant()) {
+ val = getStoreManager().evalDynamicCast(val, T, Failed);
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > I guess if `val` is a //non-zero// constant, it wouldn't make much
> > difference.
> I might be wrong, but isn't the only valid constant value for a pointer the
> zero constant?
Even if forbidden by the Standard in well-formed programs, we'd have to expect
it here - after all, it's great if we analyze a program that has a bug :)
We also have this `FixedAddressChecker` thing, so even in our simplified model,
there actually do exist non-zero constant pointers. That said, there's some bug
i stepped into in explain-svals.cpp, which produces more zero constant pointers
that one would expect, didn't have time to investigate yet...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23014
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
