vsavchenko marked an inline comment as done.
vsavchenko added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/constant-folding.c:127-128
+ if (a > 10) {
+ clang_analyzer_eval((a & 1) <= 1); // expected-warning{{FALSE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval((a & 1) > 1); // expected-warning{{FALSE}}
+ }
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> vsavchenko wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > How can both of these be false? o.o
> > Yeah :) I realized how weird it is.
> > Anything is possible in the land of infeasible ranges.
> >
> > I changed a comment there to address this
> I mean, this pretty much never happened before. How are you not tripping on
> [[
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1a4421a/clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/ConstraintManager.h#L100
> | this assert ]]? (probably it's simply been disabled in normal debug builds
> now that it's under "expensive checks")
>
> The correct thing to do is to detect the paradox earlier and mark the path as
> infeasible. What prevents us from doing it right away here?
Before we didn't really care about constraints on the operands and I changed it
:)
So, now `Intersect` (which is logically not a correct way to do what is meant)
can cause this type of behaviour
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79232/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79232
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
