On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:11 AM, Jordy Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nice idea for a checker. The one thing I'm wondering is why you decided to > use this less than / greater than approach...it might not matter here, but in > general statements about equality and inequality are a bit easier for the > analyzer to reason about than less than and greater than. It requires the > same number of checks, too: Hi Jordy, Thanks. This is my first checker and the patch I submitted is the result of a few iterations with Ted. Indeed I originally wrote it using equality and inequality as you suggested, but Ted recommended the approach used now: > [...] I can say that you are definitely going into territory where the > current solver isn't going to handle this well. It currently doesn't reason > about arbitrary disjunctions. We currently accomplish that feat in the > static analyzer by bifurcating states. So, we settled on (x <= 1) && (x >= 0) as you see in the patch. Best, Ryan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
