eugenis added a comment. In D81678#2503931 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81678#2503931>, @nikic wrote:
> As the discussion is spread out across multiple threads, do I understand > correctly that the current consensus is to introduce the > `-disable-noundef-analysis` flag, and explicitly add it to all the relevant > tests (rather than adding it to the substitutions)? Yes, I think so. > In any case, I'd recommend changing this patch to default > `-disable-noundef-analysis` to true (so you need to compile with > `-disable-noundef-analysis=0` to get undef attributes). The flag can then be > flipped together with the test changes. That should help get the main > technical change landed directly, and avoid the need of landing patches at > the same time. This is a great idea! Aside from splitting the complexity of landing the large change, it also makes our downstream cleanup easier. In that case we should probably give the flag a positive name: -enable-noundef-analysis=(0|1). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81678/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81678 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
