================
@@ -636,40 +636,37 @@ class OptionalIntAnalysis final
if (!CS)
return;
const Stmt *S = CS->getStmt();
- auto OptionalIntRecordDecl = recordDecl(hasName("OptionalInt"));
- auto HasOptionalIntType = hasType(OptionalIntRecordDecl);
-
- SmallVector<BoundNodes, 1> Matches = match(
- stmt(anyOf(cxxConstructExpr(HasOptionalIntType).bind("construct"),
- cxxOperatorCallExpr(
- callee(cxxMethodDecl(ofClass(OptionalIntRecordDecl))))
- .bind("operator"))),
- *S, getASTContext());
- if (const auto *E = selectFirst<CXXConstructExpr>(
- "construct", Matches)) {
- cast<RecordValue>(Env.getValue(*E))
- ->setProperty("has_value", Env.getBoolLiteralValue(false));
- } else if (const auto *E =
- selectFirst<CXXOperatorCallExpr>("operator", Matches)) {
- assert(E->getNumArgs() > 0);
- auto *Object = E->getArg(0);
- assert(Object != nullptr);
-
- refreshRecordValue(*Object, Env)
- .setProperty("has_value", Env.getBoolLiteralValue(true));
+ const Expr *E = dyn_cast<Expr>(S);
+ if (!E)
+ return;
+
+ if (!E->getType()->isPointerType())
+ return;
+
+ // Make sure we have a `PointerValue` for `E`.
+ auto *PtrVal = cast_or_null<PointerValue>(Env.getValue(*E));
----------------
Xazax-hun wrote:
This is only a test, but this code snippet made me think. I wonder if it is a
good idea to let checks create arbitrary `Value`s. Specifically, I am concerned
about a poorly written check triggering divergence.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76042
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
