[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal added a comment. In D138037#4134504 , @steakhal wrote: > I'm backporting this as #60834 > to the 16.x branch. Backported with 1ab37a25e463ea144289a1cbcf32a7659b2d60bb

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal added a comment. In D138037#4129160 , @xazax.hun wrote: > I am ok with committing this to unblock people hitting this assert, but at > the same time I wonder if we want to open a ticket on GitHub that we might > want to rethink how some of

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal added a comment. I'm backporting this as #60834 to the 16.x branch. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138037/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138037

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGafcf70aa6de7: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assert from EquivalenceClass::simplify (authored by steakhal). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138037?vs=475480=498301#toc Repository:

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

xazax.hun added a comment. I am ok with committing this to unblock people hitting this assert, but at the same time I wonder if we want to open a ticket on GitHub that we might want to rethink how some of this works. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal added a comment. I would also suggest backporting this to the `release/16.x` branch as that has already branched off. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138037/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138037

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal added a comment. @NoQ @xazax.hun I plan to merge this by the end of the week if you have no objection. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138037/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138037

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

vabridgers accepted this revision. vabridgers added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. I got back to testing this through a large, internal set of builds, and do not see anymore problems. If everyone is ok with that, could this be merged? Repository: rG LLVM Github

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal added a comment. In D138037#4003121 , @vabridgers wrote: > Hi @steakhal, thanks for the suggested change. > How we can help move this forward? From what I'm comprehending from the > notes, perhaps we could try running this change through our

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

vabridgers added a comment. Hi @steakhal, thanks for the suggested change. How we can help move this forward? From what I'm comprehending from the notes, perhaps we could try running this change through our internal systems level test and fuzzer. Unfortunately, I'd not be able to say more than

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal added a comment. In D138037#3941777 , @xazax.hun wrote: > I guess there are some more options. We could try keeping representatives > alive no matter what. It could be a good exercise to see if doing that makes > any difference in the analysis

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

xazax.hun added a comment. I guess there are some more options. We could try keeping representatives alive no matter what. It could be a good exercise to see if doing that makes any difference in the analysis results. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal added a subscriber: vsavchenko. steakhal added a comment. In D138037#3941632 , @xazax.hun wrote: > I did not spend too much time thinking about this yet, but this sounds scary. > I wonder if we should target the underlying problem instead,

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

xazax.hun added a comment. I did not spend too much time thinking about this yet, but this sounds scary. I wonder if we should target the underlying problem instead, i.e., making sure we never have dead symbols as representatives for eq. classes. What do you think? Repository: rG LLVM

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal updated this revision to Diff 475480. steakhal added a comment. Add test case. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138037/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138037 Files: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp

[PATCH] D138037: [analyzer] Remove unjustified assertion from EQClass::simplify

steakhal created this revision. steakhal added reviewers: xazax.hun, NoQ, martong, ASDenysPetrov, vabridgers, Szelethus. Herald added subscribers: manas, dkrupp, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, rnkovacs, szepet, baloghadamsoftware. Herald added a project: All. steakhal requested review