================
@@ -2808,27 +2825,63 @@ void ExprEngine::processBranch(const Stmt *Condition,
std::tie(StTrue, StFalse) = *KnownCondValueAssumption;
else {
assert(!isa<ObjCForCollectionStmt>(Condition));
+ // TODO: instead of this shortcut perhaps it would be better to "rejoin"
+ // the common execution path with
+ // StTrue = StFalse = PrevState;
builder.generateNode(PrevState, true, PredN);
builder.generateNode(PrevState, false, PredN);
continue;
}
if (StTrue && StFalse)
assert(!isa<ObjCForCollectionStmt>(Condition));
+ const Expr *EagerlyAssumeExpr =
+ PrevState->get<LastEagerlyAssumeAssumptionAt>();
+ const Expr *ConditionExpr = dyn_cast<Expr>(Condition);
+ if (ConditionExpr)
+ ConditionExpr = ConditionExpr->IgnoreParenCasts();
+ bool DidEagerlyAssume = EagerlyAssumeExpr == ConditionExpr;
+ bool BothFeasible = (DidEagerlyAssume || (StTrue && StFalse)) &&
+ builder.isFeasible(true) && builder.isFeasible(false);
+
// Process the true branch.
if (builder.isFeasible(true)) {
- if (StTrue)
+ if (StTrue) {
+ if (BothFeasible && IterationsFinishedInLoop &&
+ *IterationsFinishedInLoop >= 2) {
+ // When programmers write a loop, they imply that at least two
+ // iterations are possible (otherwise they would just write an `if`),
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:
YES, I know about those macros, but they are not relevant here, because there
the analyzer can see that the condition is not ambiguous, so the heuristic
implemented in this PR won't be triggered.
This comment is already too long, I don't want to extend it even further for
irrelevant pedantry like this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109804
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
