60c206e0bd
The assertion gets exposed when changing the exploration order. This is a quick hacky fix, but the intention is that if the nodes do merge, it should not matter which predecessor should be traverse. A proper fix would be not to traverse predecessors at all, as all information relevant for any decision should be avilable locally. rdar://37540480 Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42773 llvm-svn: 325977
18 lines
708 B
C
18 lines
708 B
C
// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -verify -analyzer-config exploration_strategy=unexplored_first %s
|
|
// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -verify -analyzer-config exploration_strategy=dfs %s
|
|
|
|
extern void clang_analyzer_eval(int);
|
|
|
|
typedef struct { char a; } b;
|
|
int c(b* input) {
|
|
int x = (input->a ?: input) ? 1 : 0; // expected-warning{{pointer/integer type mismatch}}
|
|
if (input->a) {
|
|
// FIXME: The value should actually be "TRUE",
|
|
// but is incorrect due to a bug.
|
|
clang_analyzer_eval(x); // expected-warning{{FALSE}}
|
|
} else {
|
|
clang_analyzer_eval(x); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
|
|
}
|
|
return x;
|
|
}
|