xazax.hun added a comment. In D120992#3368118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120992#3368118>, @NoQ wrote:
> I guess there's the usual direction that I occasionally suggest: develop a > way to verify that all possible paths were explored during symbolic execution > (`CoreEngine::hasWorkRemaining()` on steroids), then do most of the work in > `checkEndAnalysis`. I agree that having infrastructure for that would be useful. And I also agree that it might be overkill for this particular warning. > In fact you already have one of the building blocks: The dataflow analysis framework from google is also starting to shape up quite nicely. It already has a lightweight modeling of the memory that could be used to check if the pointer was changed between two program points. > I actually don't know why dead stores checker isn't a compiler warning. My guess would be simply no-one submitted a patch doing that. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120992/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120992 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
