NoQ added a comment. > Instead, i conservatively assume that they don't overlap, unless they're > already known to certainly overlap on the current execution path. This loses > a bit of coverage but the lost path is where they do actually overlap. This > path is in my opinion not only rare but also fairly useless, as it > immediately introduces an aliasing problem that we aren't quite ready to deal > with.
Wait, no, that's not what i'm doing. I'm simply forgetting about the assumption that the buffers don't overlap. So never mind, we're not losing any coverage and we're not stepping into an aliasing problem. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71322/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71322 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
