lebedev.ri added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:8719
+ // Type limit values are handled later by CheckTautologicalComparison().
+ if (IsTypeLimit(S, Other, Constant, ConstValue) && (!OtherIsBooleanType))
return;
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > Is this necessary? (Aren't the type limit values always within the range of
> > the type in question?)
> >
> > Can we avoid evaluating `Constant` a extra time here? (We already have its
> > value in `Value`.)
> Uhm, good question :)
> If i remove this, `check-clang-sema` and `check-clang-semacxx` still pass.
> I agree that it does not make much sense. Initially it was only checking for
> `Value == 0`.
> Git suggests that initially this branch was added by @rtrieu, maybe can help.
[[
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/commit/526e627d2bd7e8cbf630526d315c90864898d9ff#diff-93faf32157a807b1b7953f3747db08b6R4332
| The most original version of this code ]]
After some though i think the initial check `Value == 0` was simply to quickly
bail out
out of `DiagnoseOutOfRangeComparison()`, and not waste any time for the obvious
case
(`0`), which can't be out-of-range, ever. So i think the right behaviour could
be:
1. Either simply restore the original check:
```
// 0 values are handled later by CheckTautologicalComparison().
if ((Value == 0) && (!OtherIsBooleanType))
return;
```
And add a comment there about it
2. Or, drop it completely
3. Or, perhaps refactor `CheckTautologicalComparison()`, and more or less call
it from
function `AnalyzeComparison()`, before calling
`DiagnoseOutOfRangeComparison()`,
thus completely avoiding the need to re-evaluate `Constant` there later on,
and simplify the logic in the process.
I personally think the `3.` *might* be best.
WDYT?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38101
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
