diff options
author | Bruno Ricci <riccibrun@gmail.com> | 2019-12-22 12:27:31 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Bruno Ricci <riccibrun@gmail.com> | 2019-12-22 12:27:31 +0000 |
commit | 8a571538dff6dbc1b7f4fed6aed8be7ec1a00a8d (patch) | |
tree | 33bef20479f2c6e0be24ff219fc35a7c6dbf891f /clang/test/CodeGen/ppc64-vector.c | |
parent | b6eba3129291639dcd72ba31ed4b6f0b4dbe09e7 (diff) | |
download | bcm5719-llvm-8a571538dff6dbc1b7f4fed6aed8be7ec1a00a8d.tar.gz bcm5719-llvm-8a571538dff6dbc1b7f4fed6aed8be7ec1a00a8d.zip |
[Sema] SequenceChecker: Fix handling of operator ||, && and ?:
The current handling of the operators ||, && and ?: has a number of false
positive and false negative. The issues for operator || and && are:
1. We need to add sequencing regions for the LHS and RHS as is done for the
comma operator. Not doing so causes false positives in expressions like
`((a++, false) || (a++, false))` (from PR39779, see PR22197 for another
example).
2. In the current implementation when the evaluation of the LHS fails, the RHS
is added to a worklist to be processed later. This results in false negatives
in expressions like `(a && a++) + a`.
Fix these issues by introducing sequencing regions for the LHS and RHS, and by
not deferring the visitation of the RHS.
The issues with the ternary operator ?: are similar, with the added twist that
we should not warn on expressions like `(x ? y += 1 : y += 2)` since exactly
one of the 2nd and 3rd expression is going to be evaluated, but we should still
warn on expressions like `(x ? y += 1 : y += 2) = y`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57747
Reviewed By: rsmith
Diffstat (limited to 'clang/test/CodeGen/ppc64-vector.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions