================
@@ -299,3 +299,38 @@ void test10() {
for (auto[i, j, k] = arr; i < a; ++i) { }
for (auto[i, j, k] = arr; i < a; ++arr[0]) { }
};
+
+namespace GH132038 {
+extern void foo(int);
+void test1() {
+ int a = 0;
+ auto incr_a = [&a]() { ++a; };
+
+ for (int b = 10; a <= b; incr_a())
+ foo(a);
+
+ for (int b = 10; a <= b;)
+ incr_a();
+
+ for (int b = 10; a <= b; [&a]() { ++a; }()) { }
+ for (int b = 10; a <= b; [&a]() { }()) { }
----------------
a-tarasyuk wrote:
@zyn0217 I've added a test case with a FIXME. The original test already briefly
mentions cases involving dereferencing...
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/db0f754c5af8e6c96770533520bf8b17fc0dc977/clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-loop-analysis.cpp#L40-L41
> rewritten using dataflow analysis
I suppose it’s better to rely on dataflow analysis when handling more complex
cases...
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135573
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
