steakhal added a comment. I would suggest **not** merging this patch.
Circumventing the `assume` machinery could cause potential crashes. By tracking equivalence classes and whatnot, our solver is becoming more and more capable. Doing a bifurcation, then realizing that the current path is infeasible had caused some trouble in the past (D88019 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88019>), and it still can cause crashes RangeConstraintManager infeasible execution path due to EquivalenceClasses <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49490>. Reproducing and debugging these is a real headache. And I think there are more bugs like these lurking inside. If we want to have a chance to tackle all of these for once and all, we need a common entrypoint for querying assumptions. Thus, I would suggest not providing an extra API. @NoQ @vsavchenko What's your take on this? You could probably put these changes into the assume handler, but that would need **really** careful evaluation. If you think it's worth the effort, consider taking a few measurements on several projects. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97874/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97874 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
