The transfer function for the CFG element that represents a logical operation
computes the value of the operation and does nothing else. The element
appears after all the short circuit decisions were made, so they don't need
to be made again at this point.
Because our expression evaluation is imprecise, it is often hard to
discriminate between:
(1) we don't know the value of the RHS because we failed to evaluate it
and
(2) we don't know the value of the RHS because it didn't need to be evaluated.
This is hard because it depends on our knowledge about the value of the LHS
(eg., if LHS is true, then RHS in (LHS || RHS) doesn't need to be computed)
but LHS itself may have been evaluated imprecisely and we don't know whether
it is true or not. Additionally, the Analyzer wouldn't necessarily even remember
what the value of the LHS was because theoretically it's not really necessary
to know it for any future evaluations.
In order to work around these issues, the transfer function for logical
operations consists in looking at the ExplodedGraph we've constructed so far
in order to figure out from which CFG direction did we arrive here.
Such post-factum backtracking that doesn't involve looking up LHS and RHS values
is usually possible. However sometimes it fails because when we deduplicate
exploded nodes with the same program point and the same program state we may end
up in a situation when we reached the same program point from two or more
different directions.
By removing the assertion, we admit that the procedure indeed sometimes fails to
work. When it fails, we also admit that we don't know the value of the logical
operator.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59857
llvm-svn: 357325
Summary:
Instead of digging through the ExplodedGraph, to figure out which edge brought
us here, I compute the value of conditional expression by looking at the
sub-expression values.
To do this, I needed to change the liveness algorithm a bit -- now, the full
conditional expression also depends on all atomic sub-expressions, not only the
outermost ones.
Reviewers: jordan_rose
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1340
llvm-svn: 189090
Forgetting to at least cast the result was giving us Loc/NonLoc problems
in SValBuilder (hitting an assertion). But the standard (both C and C++)
does actually guarantee that && and || will result in the actual values
1 and 0, typed as 'int' in C and 'bool' in C++, and we can easily model that.
PR13461
llvm-svn: 162209
Artem Dergachev