vsavchenko added a comment.
Hey, great start!
I added my comments inline and other mentors as reviewers.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/constant-folding.c:275
+
+ if (a <= UINT_MAX && b <= UINT_MAX) {
+ clang_analyzer_eval((a + b) < 0); // expected-warning{{UNKNOWN}}
----------------
I think this is always true.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/constant-folding.c:287
+ if (c < 0 && d < 0) {
+ clang_analyzer_eval((c + d) == 0); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+
----------------
I'm not sure I understand why do you make this assumption.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/constant-folding.c:290-291
+ if (c > INT_MIN) {
+ clang_analyzer_eval((c + d) == 0); // expected-warning{{FALSE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval((c + d) == INT_MAX<<1); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ }
----------------
Here is the same note, `clang_analyzer_eval` doesn't produce `TRUE` only
because this condition might be true.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/constant-folding.c:298
+ clang_analyzer_eval((c + d) != 0); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval((c + d) < 0); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ }
----------------
If `c == d == 1` this doesn't hold. Did you want to check here that we account
for overflows?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/constant-folding.c:302
+ // Checks for inclusive ranges
+ if (a >= 0 && a <= 10 && b >= -20 && b <= 20) {
+ clang_analyzer_eval((a + b) >= -20); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
----------------
What about other cases here? I mean specifically when two ranges are have a
form `[A, B]`
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/constant-folding.c:305
+ clang_analyzer_eval((a + b) <= 30); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval((a + b) == -20); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ }
----------------
`clang_analyzer_eval` returns `TRUE` only if we can deduct that this expression
on a particular path is **always** true. Here it's not going to hold.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103440/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103440
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
