Charusso accepted this revision.
Charusso added a comment.
My opinion based on the Summary, which is the kind of the opposite what we
have. No invalidation happens, so no swap happens, so it is kind of misleading
like writing out "Returning something" where we cannot be sure what we return
("resulting in new notes being placed at for the call to foo() on line 14 and a
note about flag being invalidated on line 5.").
Please update the Summary according to the changes in the patch.
Also please note that, we are very pessimistic and everything is uninteresting
(like returning unknown values), you only could `markInteresting()`.
In D62883#1545347 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62883#1545347>, @Szelethus wrote:
> I like to think that most of the unimportant notes can be easily categorized,
> as seen above. With some, admittedly crude heuristics, we could cut these
> down greatly, and leave some breathing room for fine-tuning it.
I am not against that direction, just you throw oil on fire, and we already
have a huge fire (D62978 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62978>). I believe with
that we could see more bad-patterns and we could answer "In which range do we
track?".
I hope you find the answer, and thanks for working on that to solve the problem!
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62883/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62883
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
