martong marked 2 inline comments as done. martong added a comment. In D73898#1901142 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73898#1901142>, @balazske wrote:
> Is it sure that the signedness in the ranges is handled correctly? The EOF is > a negative value but the `RangeInt` is unsigned type. The > `tryExpandAsInteger` returns `int` too that is put into an unsigned > `RangeInt` later. Probably it is better to use `APSInt` for the ranges? (The > problem exists already before this change.) That is not a problem, because finally in `apply` we use an `APSInt` that is constructed by considering the correct `T` type, e.g.: const llvm::APSInt &Min = BVF.getValue(R[I].first, T); We could consider `RangeInt` as a buffer that is big enough to hold the representation of the range values. The concrete interpretation of the bits (as `T`) is done by `APSInt`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73898/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73898 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
