nlewycky added a comment. > If we're now catching integer overflow in more cases, please add some > relevant testcases.
Both more and fewer. More because we no longer have a whitelist of three kinds of expressions that we recurse into. Fewer because we no longer call IgnoreParenCasts() on the full-expression so "(void)(4608 * 1024 * 1024);" used to get a warning but now doesn't. The plan to fix this is a patch to call EvaluateIgnoredValue on non-literal types, which will get us that warning back. I've added two cases to test/Sema/integer-overflow.c and changed one to demonstrate this patch. It previously had an additional + on it just to trigger the int overflow checking. > I have an unsubstantiated performance concern: we've seen this overflow > checking having a visible effect on compile times in LNT before I haven't observed slowdown like I did with my previous attempt at this change in https://reviews.llvm.org/D31839, but yes we may need to back this patch out if it causes problems. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32412 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
