On Jul 4, 2014, at 1:15 , Anders Rönnholm <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Huh. So, I changed it back to the way it was:
>>
>> SVal Val = State->getRawSVal(*L);
>> if (Val == S) {
>> Optional<DefinedSVal> DSV = Val.getAs<DefinedSVal>();
>> ConstraintManager &CM = C.getConstraintManager();
>> if (!CM.assume(State, *DSV, false))
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> and tried running the tests. No failures. Then I flipped the "false" to
>> "true" in the assume...and still no failures. So we must never be getting
>> into that if-case!
>>
>> What would that affect?
>>
>> Jordan
>
>
> We don't get into the if-case because we never get a Loc from Sval therefore
> it always returns false and our tests are passed.
>
> Optional<Loc> L = S.getAs<Loc>();
> if (!L)
> return false;
Um. Right, we shouldn't get a Loc at that point. But we don't need a Loc. We
just need whatever NonLoc symbol is there, and we can check to see if that is
0. Why did we need a Loc again?
Anyway, we shouldn't have features that don't show up in the tests. I think
this code was either trying to avoid emitting duplicate messages if the
denominator is known to be 0 already (which won't happen because that's a fatal
error), or trying to avoid adding the symbol to the map if it's known not to be
0 (which is not what it's doing now, or at least not what it says it's doing).
The latter is kind of useful but it's just optimization.
Jordan
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
