hokein wrote: > We seem to be good at detecting new false positives but this is natural due > to the visible compiler diagnositc. Unfortunately, same is not true for new > false-negatives. More tests in our test-suite is the only way to detect those > and we should be extensively adding more tests. This is something I feel > particularly missing for lifetime analysis given the complexity of the code. > This is obviously not actionable and non-blocking and is more of a meta > comment.
+1, I fully agree with your point. I’ve felt that the current test lacks sufficient coverage. On the other side, I think the situation has been getter better with our recent improvements to lifetime analysis. Hopefully, with continued effort, we’ll reach a point where the test cover the majority of key cases. > See my comment for ideas for more tests. > > I also found a recently introduced false-negative. This is not particularly > introduced by this PR but is very related: #108463 Thanks, please see my replied comment. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108344 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
