martong added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ConstraintManager.cpp:51
+ ProgramStateRef StFalse = assume(State, Cond, false);
+ if (!StFalse) { // both infeasible
+ ProgramStateRef Infeasible = State->cloneAsInfeasible();
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> Should we mark this `LLVM_UNLIKELY(cond)`?
> I would expect this function to be quite hot, and infeasible states rare.
>
> Could we measure this one?
Yes, it could be.
Let me come back with some measurement results soon. I am going to use llvm
statistics macros to measure this, but that makes sense on top of D124758
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/sink-infeasible.c:37-48
+ /* The BASELINE passes these checks ('wrning' is used to avoid lit to match)
+ // The parent state is already infeasible, look at this contradiction:
+ clang_analyzer_eval(b > 0); // expected-wrning{{FALSE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval(b <= 0); // expected-wrning{{FALSE}}
+ // Crashes with expensive checks.
+ if (b > 0) {
+ clang_analyzer_warnIfReached(); // no-warning, OK
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> You could use a non-default check prefix.
No I can't, because this test code in the comment is meaningful only in the
baseline, I cannot run both clang versions from lit.
So, actually there is no RUN line for these, it is here only to demonstrate
what happens in the baseline.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124674/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124674
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
