[clang] [Clang] Improve ``-Wtautological-overlap-compare`` diagnostics flag (PR #133653)

[Yutong Zhu via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -169,7 +169,84 @@ int struct_test(struct A a) {
   return a.x > 5 && a.y < 1;  // no warning, different variables
 
   return a.x > 5 && a.x < 1;
-  // expected-warning at -1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to false}}
+  // expected-warning at -1{{non-overlapping comparisons always evaluate to false}}
   return a.y == 1 || a.y != 1;
   // expected-warning at -1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to true}}
 }
+
+void char_tests(char c) {
+  if (c > 'a' || c < 'z') {}
+  // expected-warning at -1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to true}}
+  if (c > 'z' && c < 'a') {}
+  // expected-warning at -1{{non-overlapping comparisons always evaluate to false}}
+  if (c == 'a' && c == 'z') {}
+  // expected-warning at -1{{non-overlapping comparisons always evaluate to false}}
+  if (c != 'a' || c != 'z') {}
+  // expected-warning at -1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to true}}
+}
+
+void float_tests(float f) {
+  if (f > 1.0 || f < 2.0) {}
+  // expected-warning at -1{{overlapping comparisons always evaluate to true}}
----------------
YutongZhuu wrote:

Sorry for the late reply. If we consider ``nan`` as a possible value for ``f``, this flag would be wrong in the first place since what you said is also applicable for integer comparisons.  I wouldn't worry too much about the ``nan`` case too much because I really can't imagine any code written like this was intended.

``__builtin_nan()/__builtin_inf()`` wouldn't trigger this flag at all since this flag only deals with literal comparands, but I can still add them.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133653