AaronBallman wrote:
> But actually I was sceptical about a different thing.
Thanks for clarifying!
> > If i understand it right, that particular conditional statement should get
> > executed for this:
>
> ```c
> int main() {
> int var1 = 63;
> int out = var;
> }
> ```
>
> > and should be skipped for:
>
> ```c
> int main(){
> int var1 = 63;
> int out = notFound;
> }
> ```
>
> > but the problem is that the conditional statement gets executed for both
> > the cases, so when i put the new check somewhere below it, the control
> > never reaches the new check.
> > please correct me if i'm off somewhere :)
>
> This was my actual concern, but this behaviour seems unpredictable, sometimes
> happens and sometimes doesn't, but in either cases no identifiers were near
> to eachother.
If you're talking about
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/cb3498c6704daefc6e5221beb757126765737aa7/clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp#L2527,
I would expect that condition to be true for both code examples because there
is a scope (the body of `main`) and there is a `TypoExpr **` passed in from the
caller. Am I looking at the right condition? If so, I'm not certain I
understand what's unpredictable yet.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123495
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
