NoQ accepted this revision. NoQ added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Herald added a subscriber: Charusso.
In D53754#1401162 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53754#1401162>, @baloghadamsoftware wrote: > I think that here the main difference is that if we analyze this function as > top level, then we find a true positive: the regions for `v1` and `v2` //may > be// the same but generally they are difference (hence the different > parameters). Aha, right, that's an interesting heuristic. I guess that the developer may also add a specific check (eg., `if (&v1 == &v2) ...`, but that's a separate story of aliasing and renaming, and i do admit that i don't see this sort of code being written sensibly. Well, you can't really rely on my imagination, because i can still say the same about the `SymbolConjured` examples. I'm really curious how did this originally look, i.e. even if the user knows that a certain function always returns the same container, why would they call it twice? Was this happening in some sort of loop? Is there a more realistic test case that we can add? Anyway, let's add a huge comment that explains why `SymbolConjured`s are special and commit. I mean, this definitely deserves a comment :) Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D53754/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D53754 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
