aaron.ballman accepted this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. In D81272#2218246 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81272#2218246>, @whisperity wrote:
> In D81272#2218175 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81272#2218175>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> While I agree with your observation about data and flow sensitivity, I >> approved on the belief that the check as-is provides enough utility to >> warrant adding it as-is. If someone wants to improve the check into being a >> CSA check, we can always deprecate this one at that point. However, if there >> are strong opinions that the check should start out as a CSA check because >> it requires that sensitivity for your needs, now's a good time to bring up >> those concerns. > > It's generally harder to create big logic mistakes when it comes to more > complex expressions, assuming the user does't copy-paste (which I might have > done, in the above example). We do not need to solve //every// potentially > equivalent conditional (it is unsolvable in the generic case anyways). I'm > sure this check can be improved later with handling trivial comparisons (such > as standard library `int` results not being 0, -1, etc.). Great, then we're on the same page! The new documentation and test cases LG, so re-approving. Thank you! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81272/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81272 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
