martong marked an inline comment as done. martong added a comment. In D124674#3491710 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124674#3491710>, @NoQ wrote:
> Yes, we've discussed this before, and I'm very much in favor of this change. > This is assertion removal, and the assertion has been really useful back in > the day, but the assertion doesn't seem to be realistic to maintain with all > the new logic in the constraint solver coming in in recent years. Thanks for your review and support! ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/ProgramState.h:88 GenericDataMap GDM; // Custom data stored by a client of this class. + bool Infeasible = false; unsigned refCount; ---------------- NoQ wrote: > The reader deserves a massive amount of explanation here. Normally infeasible > states are just null states. We need to explain how these new infeasible > states are different. > > Maybe a longer name? `IsPostOverconstrained` or something like that. Okay, I've added an essay that explains these differences. > Maybe a longer name? IsPostOverconstrained or something like that. Yeah, I agree a longer name could reflect that this is something that requires special handling. I chose `PosteriorlyOverconstrained`. 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
