On Mar 15, 2013, at 10:10 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Fariborz Jahanian <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Author: fjahanian >> Date: Fri Mar 15 11:36:04 2013 >> New Revision: 177162 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=177162&view=rev >> Log: >> c: add the missing binary operatory when checking >> for integer overflow. // rdar://13423975 >> >> Modified: >> cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp >> cfe/trunk/test/Sema/switch-1.c >> >> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp >> URL: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp?rev=177162&r1=177161&r2=177162&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp (original) >> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp Fri Mar 15 11:36:04 2013 >> @@ -5188,7 +5188,7 @@ void Sema::CheckImplicitConversions(Expr >> void Sema::CheckForIntOverflow (Expr *E) { >> if (const BinaryOperator *BExpr = >> dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(E->IgnoreParens())) { >> unsigned Opc = BExpr->getOpcode(); >> - if (Opc != BO_Add && Opc != BO_Sub && Opc != BO_Mul) >> + if (Opc != BO_Add && Opc != BO_Sub && Opc != BO_Mul && Opc != BO_Div) >> return; >> llvm::SmallVector<PartialDiagnosticAt, 4> Diags; >> E->EvaluateForOverflow(Context, &Diags); >> >> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Sema/switch-1.c >> URL: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Sema/switch-1.c?rev=177162&r1=177161&r2=177162&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- cfe/trunk/test/Sema/switch-1.c (original) >> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Sema/switch-1.c Fri Mar 15 11:36:04 2013 >> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ >> // RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -triple x86_64-apple-darwin10 %s >> // RUN: %clang_cc1 -x c++ -fsyntax-only -verify -triple >> x86_64-apple-darwin10 %s >> // rdar://11577384 >> +// rdar://13423975 >> >> int f(int i) { >> switch (i) { >> @@ -10,6 +11,8 @@ int f(int i) { >> return 2; >> case (123456 *789012) + 1: // expected-warning {{overflow in >> expression; result is -1375982336 with type 'int'}} >> return 3; >> + case (2147483647*4)/4: // expected-warning {{overflow in >> expression; result is -4 with type 'int'}} > > Yeah, I'm with Jordan here - why are we warning about the division. > Division can't cause overflow. Shouldn't we be warning about that > multiplication? We are warning about multiplication. - Fariborz > >> + return 4; >> case 2147483647: >> return 0; >> } >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
