martong marked an inline comment as done. martong added a comment. In D126481#3542919 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126481#3542919>, @ASDenysPetrov wrote:
> @martong As you said, my solution D103096 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103096> > suppose to pass these and more other tests cases. So how it will help in > combination with my solution D103096 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103096>? > Although, your patch is really simple but it's more like a plug then a real > `SymbolCast ` support, isn't it? I don't quite understand the motivation. This part of the SValBuilder is responsible for **constant folding**. We need this constant folding, so the engine can work with less symbols, this way it can be more efficient. Whenever a symbol is constrained with a constant then we substitute the symbol with the corresponding integer. If a symbol is constrained with a range, then the symbol is kept and we fall-back to use the range based constraint manager, which is not that efficient. This patch is the natural extension of the existing constant folding machinery with the support of `SymbolCast` symbols. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/SimpleSValBuilder.cpp:1354 + return I->second; + const SymExpr *OpSym = S->getOperand(); + SVal OpVal = getConstOrVisit(OpSym); ---------------- ASDenysPetrov wrote: > Should this imply to use the root symbol and not the second nested one? > E.g. from `(int)(short)(x)` do you want `(short)(x)` or `(x)`? > `getOperand` gives you `(short)(x)` in this case. We need the operand, with your words it is the second nested one, not the root. In case of `(int)(short)(x)` we need the `(short)(x)`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126481/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126481 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
