ymandel added a comment. In D142710#4094934 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142710#4094934>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> This change looks good to me. I wonder, however, whether the behavior should > be parameterized in the future. E.g., whether the user of the analysis should > be able to make a decision whether the analysis should be pessimistic or > optimistic about unmodeled values. Interesting idea. I think this goes along with other places where we are unsound. Here, we err on the side of soundness. but, in general, we should have a configuration mechanism for this. FWIW, the only reason we have uninitialized values at this point is recursive types. We also limit the depth of structs, but that should be removed given my recent patch to only model relevant fields. I have an idea for lazy initialization of values that I think could solve the recursion issue. Together, we could remove this concept of unmodeled values altogether from the framework. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142710/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142710 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
