NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:496
+ // as a bitwise operation result could be null.
+ if (RS.getConcreteValue() && RS.getConcreteValue()->getExtValue() == 0)
+ return State;
----------------
Instead of "we know that the value is null", we should write "we //don't// know
that the value is //non-//null". I.e. if we're not sure, we must still do an
early return.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:507
+ ConstraintRangeTy Constraints = State->get<ConstraintRange>();
+ for (const SymbolRef CurrentSym : SIE->symbols()) {
+ if (CurrentSym == SIE)
----------------
This loop doesn't make sense. When your expression looks like `(((a + b) + c) +
d) & (e + f)`, you don't want to iterate separately over `a`, `b`, `c`, `d`,
`e`, `f`; but that's what this loop would do. You should only look at the LHS
and the RHS. If you want to descend further, do so recursively, so that to keep
track of the overall structure of the symbolic expression as you're traversing
it, rather than traversing sub-expressions in an essentially random order.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/bitwise-ranges.cpp:21
+
+ // CHECK: { "symbol": "reg_$0<unsigned int X>", "range": "{ [2, 3] }" }
+ // CHECK: { "symbol": "(reg_$0<unsigned int X>) & 1U", "range": "{ [1, 1] }"
}
----------------
This test accidentally tests debug prints. We don't want to test debug prints
here. I suggest:
```lang=c++
clang_analyzer_eval(X >= 2 && X <= 3); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
```
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65239/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65239
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
