ymandel marked an inline comment as done. ymandel added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Transfer.cpp:56 + Env.getValue(*RHSNorm, SkipPast::Reference))) + return Env.makeIff(*LHSValue, *RHSValue); + ---------------- xazax.hun wrote: > I think a possible alternative way to handle this is to do some sort of > "unification" for the two values. The current approach is superior in the > sense that solving and generating constraints are clearly separate. Also this > might be better for generating useful error messages. In case the solver ever > becomes a bottleneck, I wonder whether replacing this with a unification step > would speed things up a bit. > Although that would only work for the equality case. That's a good point. Although I wonder if we could get the best of both worlds by adding a unification pre-step to the solver itself, basically looking for `iff` patterns of this sort. Then, the solver could keep a record of such unifications which it could export for diagnostic purposes. On a related note, another potential use of unification is in equivalence testing of environments. Instead of strict equality of flow conditions, for example, I could imagine equivalence up to unification (aka. renaming of atoms). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122830/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122830 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
