Update

Update

Introduce Value class

Let's try a better approach to determine whether we should pretty print the expression.

Make build bots happy

Fix typos

Update patch according to @ymandel 's suggestion. Thanks!

In D140753#4019322, @gribozavr2 wrote:

Thank you for your contribution!

While adding a conditional check fixes the crash, the problem's root cause must be deeper. Mismatched types indicate that one code path in dataflow analysis computes a bool type for a storage location, while a different code path computes an integer type. That's the actual root cause. Could you try to investigate the reasons for that, and try to fix it? The dataflow analysis should be computing values of the same type no matter through which path we arrived at a program point.

Forgot about the tests :)

This is caused by https://reviews.llvm.org/D139013 I should mention.

In D137494#3910500, @v1nh1shungry wrote:

@tom-anders Thank you for reviewing!

I tried adding a test but I don't know how to run the tests.

And I just found that operators declared in a class context are already handled in the existing version, but user-defined literals are not, so I rewrote the comments.

Add the original mailformed test case, thanks Shafik!

Address Aaron's comments, thanks!

In D134702#3818274, @nathanchance wrote:

Thanks a lot for fixing this! I took it for a spin against the Linux kernel and all instances of -Wvoid-ptr-dereference disappeared :)

Sorry for missing the conversation, I was in sleeping mode at that time ;D

Address comments.

Add &(*p) test case in dr1xx.c. (Previous seperate test is removed as it mostly duplicate with the DR test)

So I thought 'isAddressOfOperand' might be good enough for this, is this not the case?

Address comments from reviewers.

I'd admit that passing a boolean between these functions is ugly but surprisingly it works! even for `&(void_ptr)! But yeah, please suggest if you have better solutions ;D

I bet now it rendered correctly.

Do you think std::is_same_v will be even better?

Rebase, adjust commit message and release note.

Try to address Aaron's comments.

gentle ping :)

Rebase

Update the existing diagnostic and its tests.

Simpify code a little bit.

gentle ping :)

Prefer https://reviews.llvm.org/D131464

In D131657#3715976, @erichkeane wrote:

LGTM! Let us know if you need this committed for you.

I wonder what's the difference between this patch and https://reviews.llvm.org/D124434 ? Also add some reviewers that get involved in the previous discussion.

Thanks!

git clang-format HEAD~1 can't format code that not been touched, format by hand.

I'm not if this patch is worth to continue...

Clang-format

Fix the build

In rG067faddb55b94749d16b32679ce6b75fdb5f4b01#1111275, @sunho wrote:

This is actually because we are using implicit consturctor of Expected class. We should explicitly move in this case.

@v.g.vassilev if you can take another look at the wording of the FIXME, and make sure you're happy about it, that will be awesome.

Fix some typos

Rebase and add a FIXME