sgatev added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Transfer.cpp:348 + auto *Loc = Env.getReturnStorageLocation(); + assert(Loc != nullptr); + // FIXME: Model NRVO. ---------------- samestep wrote: > sgatev wrote: > > Let's do `if (Loc == nullptr) return;` > I don't think we want to do that, right? Shouldn't the `return` storage > location always be set? Or is this about the "analyzing fragments rather than > full functions" thing we discussed yesterday? I think it's related. If we are going with always initializing the `return` storage location then I guess at some point we should be able to make `Environment::getReturnStorageLocation` return a reference? In that case I'm fine with keeping the assert around in the meantime. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Transfer.cpp:564 + assert(ReturnLoc != nullptr); + Env.setStorageLocation(*S, *ReturnLoc); + Env.popCall(ExitEnv); ---------------- samestep wrote: > sgatev wrote: > > We use stable storage locations to ensure convergence. In that spirit, > > shouldn't we assign `ReturnLoc`'s value to `S`'s storage location instead > > of changing the storage location? Alternatively, we can pass `S`'s storage > > location to `pushCall` so that it can store it as `ReturnLoc`. > Could you clarify how this hurts convergence? My understanding is that > `ReturnLoc` here is already stable, so this would make `S`'s storage location > stable too. If I follow correctly, `ReturnLoc` here is the result of `Env.createStorageLocation(ReturnType)` which isn't stable. Each call to `createStorageLocation` returns a fresh storage location. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130600/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130600 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
