[analyzer] Toning down invalidation a bit
When a function takes the address of a field the analyzer will no longer
assume that the function will change other fields of the enclosing structs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57230
llvm-svn: 352473
diff --git a/clang/test/Analysis/call-invalidation.cpp b/clang/test/Analysis/call-invalidation.cpp
index c107e10..dade8db 100644
--- a/clang/test/Analysis/call-invalidation.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/Analysis/call-invalidation.cpp
@@ -132,18 +132,21 @@
PlainStruct s1;
s1.x = 1;
s1.z = 1;
+ s1.y = 1;
clang_analyzer_eval(s1.x == 1); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
clang_analyzer_eval(s1.z == 1); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
// Not only passing a structure pointer through const pointer parameter,
// but also passing a field pointer through const pointer parameter
// should preserve the contents of the structure.
useAnythingConst(&(s1.y));
+ clang_analyzer_eval(s1.y == 1); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
clang_analyzer_eval(s1.x == 1); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
// FIXME: Should say "UNKNOWN", because it is not uncommon to
// modify a mutable member variable through const pointer.
clang_analyzer_eval(s1.z == 1); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
useAnything(&(s1.y));
- clang_analyzer_eval(s1.x == 1); // expected-warning{{UNKNOWN}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval(s1.x == 1); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval(s1.y == 1); // expected-warning{{UNKNOWN}}
}