================
@@ -169,7 +169,84 @@ int struct_test(struct A a) {
return a.x > 5 && a.y < 1; // no warning, different variables
return a.x > 5 && a.x < 1;
- // expected-warning@-1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to false}}
+ // expected-warning@-1{{non-overlapping comparisons always evaluate to
false}}
return a.y == 1 || a.y != 1;
// expected-warning@-1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to true}}
}
+
+void char_tests(char c) {
+ if (c > 'a' || c < 'z') {}
+ // expected-warning@-1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to true}}
+ if (c > 'z' && c < 'a') {}
+ // expected-warning@-1{{non-overlapping comparisons always evaluate to
false}}
+ if (c == 'a' && c == 'z') {}
+ // expected-warning@-1{{non-overlapping comparisons always evaluate to
false}}
+ if (c != 'a' || c != 'z') {}
+ // expected-warning@-1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to true}}
+}
+
+void float_tests(float f) {
+ if (f > 1.0 || f < 2.0) {}
+ // expected-warning@-1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to true}}
----------------
Sirraide wrote:
> If we consider `nan` as a possible value for `f`, this flag would be wrong in
> the first place
Yeah, that’s a good point. Maybe we should have a comment for that somewhere
(either in the test cases or the code).
> `__builtin_nan()/__builtin_inf()` wouldn't trigger this flag at all since
> this flag only deals with literal comparands, but I can still add them.
Right, I didn’t think about that because we’re doing constant evaluation to get
the value, which *could* handle e.g. `__builtin_inf()`. I think in that case
it’s fine as is.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133653
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
