pgousseau added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12901#248842, @xazax.hun wrote:
> Hi! > > Thank you for the patch! Thanks for reviewing ! > What happens if you factor the "index + 1" expression out into a separate > variable? > E.g.: unsigned temp = index + 1; and use temp in the condition? In this case the symbol 'temp' is still considered by the analyzer as a 'Sym + Int' symbol so the same code path is followed. I will add the test case thanks ! > My impression is that, the ranges does not model the overflow behavior > correctly (which is well defined for unsigned values). I wondering why do you > think that, the right way to solve this is to modify assumeSymNE and > assumeSymEQ? Wouldn't it be better to actually handle the ranges properly on > assignments and other operations (such as +), so assumeSymNE and assumeSymEQ > can remain unmodified? Yes handling ranges properly would be better! I am trying to fix the assertion without having to do too much re-engineering, I agree that changing assumeSymNE/assumeSymEQ's interfaces is not ideal but it has I hope the advantage of making the purpose of the change clearer and easier to revert should modelling of truncations/promotions be added ? Any ideas on how I could avoid changing the interface? Regards, Pierre http://reviews.llvm.org/D12901 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
