george.karpenkov added a comment.
> I'm curious if the crash would turn into an assertion failure during
> getRawSVal() after https://reviews.llvm.org/D38801 is committed.
I guess we would see?
> If this problem is fixed on the checker side (it probably should be - the
> checker , we can probably put stronger asserts onto types suitable for
> symbols.
Of course I'm new, but I disagree with this statement: in order to have a
robust API, the function should not crash, unless the caller violates an
explicit precondition.
`getSVal` is just a function for getting a symbolic value for a particular
statement, it seems totally valid to query it for an expression which type is
`void`.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ProgramState.cpp:265
+ // to the type of T, which is not always the case (e.g. for void).
+ if (!T.isNull() && (T->isIntegralOrEnumerationType() || Loc::isLocType(T))) {
if (SymbolRef sym = V.getAsSymbol()) {
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> If a type is an integral or enumeration type or a Loc type, then it is
> definitely not null.
But the check itself will crash if the type is null.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39862
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
