martong added a comment. In D79431#2263690 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79431#2263690>, @martong wrote:
> In D79431#2215610 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79431#2215610>, @Szelethus wrote: > >> Ah, okay, silly me. Didn't catch that. Then the message is OK for now. >> >> edit: Describing //how// the violation happened might be a valuable for >> development purposes as well. > > What if we'd add a `toString` method to the constraints and we'd add this to > `Msg`? This way we'd know the contents of the constraint, thus we we'd know > //how// the constraint is violated. I mean we'd know what is not satisfied. But, to know why exactly that is not satisfied we should dump the whole `State` but that's obviously not an option. Perhaps we could track which symbols and expressions are participating in the assumption related to the constraint and we could dump only those, but this seems to be a very complex approach. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79431/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79431 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
