NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/LoopUnrolling.cpp:214-216
+ const Expr *BoundExpr = CondOp->getLHS()->IgnoreParenImpCasts();
+ if (BoundExpr == Matches[0].getNodeAs<Expr>("boundVarOperand"))
+ BoundExpr = CondOp->getRHS()->IgnoreParenImpCasts();
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> Alright, I stood on top of this for longer than I'd like to admit, what's
> happening here? Like, `CondExpr`, with the given testfile, should be `i < n`,
> right? Then `BoundExpr` is supposed to be `i`, and if that is equal to
> `Matches[0].getNodeAs<Expr>("boundVarOperand")` (which I guess is supposed to
> `n`), which I'm not sure how it could ever happen, we assign the RHS of the
> assignment to `BoundExpr`?
>
> What does this do? Why is it needed? Which 2 test cases cover these lines?
I think this is about `i < n` vs. `n > i`.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/LoopUnrolling.cpp:221-230
+ if (BoundNumVal.isUnknown()) {
+ if (const auto *BoundDeclRefExpr = dyn_cast<DeclRefExpr>(BoundExpr)) {
+ // FIXME: Add other declarations such as Objective-C fields
+ if (const auto *BoundVarDecl =
+ dyn_cast<VarDecl>(BoundDeclRefExpr->getDecl())) {
+ BoundNumVal = State->getSVal(
+ State->getLValue(BoundVarDecl, Pred->getLocationContext()));
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> I don't see obvious test case for which `BoundNumVal` would be unknown, am I
> wrong?
We need an `ExprInspection` method that reliably produces an `UnknownVal`,
because there's no truly valid reason to produce `UnknownVal` apart from
"something is unimplemented".
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63279/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63279
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
