xazax.hun accepted this revision. xazax.hun added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D139534#4036783 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139534#4036783>, @steakhal wrote: > In D139534#4034719 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139534#4034719>, @xazax.hun > wrote: > >>> Here is the gist of one *new* TP: >> >> Where would `sprops` get escaped? Did I miss that or was that reduced out of >> the example? > > You are right, it 'never' escapes, yet in the past we modelled all stores to > local statics as an 'immediate escape'. > This is what I think we should not do. And this is what this patch removes. Oh, now I understand. Yeah, I guess the idea was that we only have escape information for the current path, but the static's address might have escaped in another path that we did not process. Overall, I think those cases should be rare, so I do support this change. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139534 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
