================
@@ -13681,12 +13681,13 @@ void Sema::AddInitializerToDecl(Decl *RealDecl, Expr
*Init, bool DirectInit) {
}
Init = Result.getAs<Expr>();
+ assert(Init && "Init must not be null");
+
IsParenListInit = !InitSeq.steps().empty() &&
InitSeq.step_begin()->Kind ==
InitializationSequence::SK_ParenthesizedListInit;
QualType VDeclType = VDecl->getType();
- if (Init && !Init->getType().isNull() &&
- !Init->getType()->isDependentType() && !VDeclType->isDependentType() &&
+ if (!Init->getType()->isDependentType() && !VDeclType->isDependentType() &&
----------------
tahonermann wrote:
I'm uncertain about this change. On the one hand, the assignment to `Init`
looks to me like it must produce a non-null result due to the prior check to
`Result.isInvalid()`. However, the following uses of `Init` were already
guarded by a check for a non-null value, so the static analysis tool should not
have complained about those.
Was the static analysis tool perhaps complaining about later uses of `Init`?
Note that the assignment at line 13683 above is conditional (on
`!VDecl->isInvalidDecl()`) and therefore might not suffice to ensure a definite
non-null value. I haven't checked exhaustively if that is the case though.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94368
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
