ymandel added a comment. In D152732#4414771 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152732#4414771>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> In D152732#4414707 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152732#4414707>, @ymandel wrote: > >> Ultimately what matters for a user is the global limit. > > I am not 100% sure about that. While it is true that the user cares about the > process not hanging, but global vs local limits can have observable effects > on the analysis results. With a global limit, after a query exhausted all the > budget, for all intents and purposes we continue the analysis without a > solver for the rest of the function and all queries would just time out, even > the simple ones. With a local limit, the solver might time out for a couple > of queries, but we keep the precision for the simple queries. That being > said, it is possible that the scenario where we have a few big queries that > blows the solver up but the rest of them are simple just does not happen that > much. Also, a local timeout produces less reliable worst case runtime > results. This makes me think it might be possible that we want both, but this > decision is probably better made when we have some evidence that we actually > need both. So, I am ok with committing this as is for now. Great! Yes, I think you're right that having both is probably the ideal solution. Let's start here, but that will be an easy step if and when we need it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152732/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152732 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
