=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119...@github.com>
steakhal wrote: > [...] To fix this problem, it would be sufficient to e.g. ensure that > evalEagerlyAssumeBifurcation sets LastEagerlyAssumeBifurcationAt to nullptr > [...] Sounds good to me. Let's zero it out after it's "used"/"consumed". > [...] there might be better solutions to implement this "did EagerlyAssume > split the state right now directly before this processBranch callback?" check > that I need. (E.g. perhaps we could walk a few steps backwards on the > ExplodedGraph -- but I don't know what kinds of nodes should I expect and I'm > afraid that what I could write would run into pitfalls in unusual cases.) Yes, it could get messy. For instance if we have multiple parent nodes due to a merge. Let's not do traversals. I'm good with the change once the last remark is fixed. BTW have you measured the running time implications of this patch? How much we spare? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119388 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
