================
@@ -50,6 +101,44 @@ class BuiltinFunctionChecker : public Checker<eval::Call> {
} // namespace
+void BuiltinFunctionChecker::HandleOverflowBuiltin(const CallEvent &Call,
+ CheckerContext &C,
+ BinaryOperator::Opcode Op,
+ QualType ResultType) const {
+ // All __builtin_*_overflow functions take 3 argumets.
+ assert(Call.getNumArgs() == 3);
+
+ ProgramStateRef State = C.getState();
+ SValBuilder &SVB = C.getSValBuilder();
+ const Expr *CE = Call.getOriginExpr();
+
+ SVal Arg1 = Call.getArgSVal(0);
+ SVal Arg2 = Call.getArgSVal(1);
+
+ SVal RetVal = SVB.evalBinOp(State, Op, Arg1, Arg2, ResultType);
+
+ // TODO: Handle overflows with values that known to overflow. Like INT_MAX +
1
+ // should not produce state for non-overflow case and threat it as
----------------
pskrgag wrote:
So.... I've pushed what I came up with for handling overflow, but during test
writing I found smth I don't understand. I've decided to push current state,
since it's easier to show code than describe it =)
My current problem is following code:
```c
if (a > 10)
return;
if (b > 10)
return;
// clang_analyzer_eval(a + b < 30); <--- Prints 1 and 0, but why ???
````
For some reason constraints do not work as expected. And because of that my
overflow checker splits state where it shouldn't.... I'd really appreciate tips
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102602
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
