steakhal added a comment.
This time I've checked this on our test set, and it seems to run without any
issues. I'm still waiting for the results of analyzing LLVM, but I think safe
to say that this should work.
Could you please give this another shoot at this @uabelho?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/SimpleSValBuilder.cpp:107-122
+// Checks if the negation the value and flipping sign preserve
+// the semantics on the operation in the resultType
+static bool isNegationValuePreserving(const llvm::APSInt & val,
+ const APSIntType resultType) {
+ const unsigned valueBits = val.getSignificantBits();
+ if (valueBits == resultType.getBitWidth()) {
+ // The value is the lowest negative value that is representable
----------------
Please follow the naming conventions of LLVM, so variables are `UpperCase`, and
the `&` sign binds to the variable name.
https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#name-types-functions-variables-and-enumerators-properly
I'm not sure why `clang-format` did not complain about these.
Also, taking a parameter by-const-value is discouraged, since it has no visible
effect.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124658/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124658
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
