To be able to use real Qt-Code in "test/cfg/qt.cpp" and still do a
syntax check the Qt settings are read out via pkg-config now if it is
available. This way the test now can contain Qt macros and functions and
the syntax check can still be used.
Additionally the same options as for the other tests are used now for
the Qt config tests.
Installing the package "qtbase5-dev" should be enough to enable the
syntax checks (already installed for travis tests).
This fixes valueflow to have a value for `||` operator here:
```cpp
bool f()
{
bool a = (4 == 3); // <-- 0
bool b = (3 == 3); // <-- 1
return a || b; // <-- 1
}
```
When comparing if the shift is large enough to make the result zero, use
an unsigned long long to make sure the result fits. Also, a check that
avoids setting the value if the shift is equal to or larger than the
number of bits in the operand (this is undefined behaviour). Finally,
add a check to make sure the calculated value is not too large to store.
Add test cases to cover this.
This was detected by an MSVC warning.
valueflow.cpp(1350): warning C4334: '<<' : result of 32-bit shift implicitly
converted to 64 bits (was 64-bit shift intended?)
This fixes issue in:
```cpp
void f()
{
char stack[512];
RGNDATA *data;
if (data_size > sizeof (stack))
data = malloc (data_size);
else
data = (RGNDATA *)stack;
if ((char *)data != stack)
free (data); // <- data is not stack
}
```
It seems the `ProgramMemory` can't handle two known values(such as int and tok) together. So instead `ValueFlowAfterAssign` runs `ValueFlowForward` with tok values and then runs it with the other values.
I sometimes find myself wondering which test cases I have broken when I fiddle with some check (since I then can try running these specific tests in the debugger, or make a small change and see if the tests pass). This PR adds the testclass and the test case names to the file and line number. I took special care to cover the case where an assert would be placed directly in the ```run()```-function, i.e., not inside a test case (from what I could see, no such case exists). If there is no need to handle this case, the code can be simplified (there wouldn't be need for the ```teardownTest()```-function for example).
The exact format for how to print the test name is very much up for discussion.
amai2012
Daniel Marjamäki
Sebastian
practicalswift
IOBYTE
Paul Fultz II
rikardfalkeborn
amai2012
orbitcowboy