xazax.hun added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp:270 + // needed. + BoolValue &ComparisonValue = MakeValue(Env, *HasValueVal); + auto *ComparisonExprLoc = ---------------- ymandel wrote: > xazax.hun wrote: > > Is this the right way to initialize `ComparisonValue`? > > > > Considering the expression: `opt.value_or(nullptr) != nullptr` > > * When `has_value == false`, `opt.value_or(nullptr)` will return `nullptr`, > > so `!=` evaluates to false. This case seems to check out. > > * However, when `has_value == true`, `opt` might still hold an `nullptr` > > and `!=` could still evaluate to false. > Thanks for digging into this. I think it's correct, but helpful to step > through: > > Its correctness depends on `MakeValue`, so I'll focus on that in particular. > For the `nullptr` case, we'll get: > ``` > HasValueVal && ContentsNotEqX > ``` > So, when `has_value == true`, this basically reduces to `ContentsNotEqX`. > Since that's an atom, the result is indeterminate, which I believe is the > desired outcome. > > WDYT? Also, even if I've convinced you, please let me know how i can improve > the comments. For that matter, would `MakeValue` be better with a more > specific name, like "MakePredicate" or somesuch? I think what confuses me is that we do something different for the 3 cases. You convinced me that `HasValueVal && ContentsNotEqX` is correct. But we only do this for one branch out of the 3. What is the reason for that? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122231/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122231 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
