steakhal added a comment.
I don't know how did we miss this. I run your patch on several projects and it
seemed good. Does anyone have an idea how to prevent such a silly mistake from
happening again? I was thinking of coverage data, but that wouldn't be enough
for this example.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/casts.c:254-268
+// See PR50179.
+// Just don't crash.
+typedef struct taskS {
+ void *pJob;
+} taskS;
+
+typedef struct workS {
----------------
Please, @ASDenysPetrov investigate this.
I also think that this test case could be simplified, and a no-crash comment
would be also appreciated at the corresponding line.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101635/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101635
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
