rtrieu marked 3 inline comments as done.
rtrieu added a comment.
In D66045#1624389 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66045#1624389>, @jfb wrote:
> Does this work for unions as well?
This will work for union accesses via the same member name, but not different
member names.
union U { int x; int y; } u;
bool b1 = u.x == u.x; // warn always true
bool b2 = u.x == u.y; // no warning
It's easy to do when the types are the same, but more difficult when the types
are different, so keeping with the same name member access is the safe way for
now.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/array-struct-region.cpp:31
+ bool check() const { return this == this + 0; }
+ bool operator !() const { return this != this + 0; }
----------------
jfb wrote:
> Is this the only way? Or do casts also disable the diagnostic?
There's other ways to do this. I picked "+ 0" here. Explicit casts, like to
void* or const S* would also disable it. I think pragmas would also work. I
don't particularly care which way since this is an analyzer test.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/self-comparison.cpp:78
+ return S::static_field == s1.static_field; // expected-warning
{{self-comparison always evaluates to true}}
+ return s1.array == s1.array; // expected-warning {{self-comparison always
evaluates to true}}
+ return t.s.static_field == S::static_field; // expected-warning
{{self-comparison always evaluates to true}}
----------------
jfb wrote:
> `s1.array[0] == s1.array[0]`?
No, array accesses aren't checked yet. But it's a good idea to look into it.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/self-comparison.cpp:87
+};
+} // namespace member_tests
----------------
jfb wrote:
> The test only has `==`. Do other operators trigger?
All the standard comparison operators will work here. I'll add tests.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66045/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66045
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
