================
@@ -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:
I think the reason why it might be worth spending some time thinking about
convergence because this is probably one of the bigger challenges for people
writing checks. The other reason why this might be an interesting question,
because in case we want to run multiple checks in the same fixed-point
iteration, we might not want arbitrary interactions between them.
That being said, there are many moving pieces that we have not figured yet out,
so I 100% agree that it might be too early to try to solve this problem now.
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
