Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D79431#2263693 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79431#2263693>, @martong wrote: > In D79431#2263690 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79431#2263690>, @martong wrote: > >> 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. I realize that the //how// and //why// phrases in this context a bit too vague :) What do you mean under having to dump the whole `State`? I didn't mean to compress a bug path into a warning message, only what I mentioned in D79431#2020951 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79431#2020951>. In any case, I think its okay to just move on with this patch. LGTM! 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
