necto wrote: > By the way, what fraction of the results is perturbed (replaced with other > random results) when this commit is activated? Did you run any "without this > commit vs with this commit" comparisons?
The difference is around 5-10 appearing/disappearing issues, and 50-100 issues with changed execution path (out of 83 K issues, with no Z3 refutation). > As a tangential remark, I noticed that there seems to be heavy code > duplication between the `getXSymbol` methods of `SymbolManager` -- it would > be nice to unify them into a single template method that takes the symbol > class and the argument list types as template parameters (analogously to > `SymExprAllocator::make` which does similar forwarding). However, this > probably belongs to a separate NFC refactoring commit (and I can also > implement it if you don't have time for it). What do you think? Do you see > any obstacle (or perhaps conflict with changes that you're planning). It makes sense and I have no future developments that would be incompatible with this refactoring. I did not do it in this PR to avoid scope creep. I will see on Monday, if I have some spare time to do this refactoring. @steakhal, I believe I addressed all your feedback. If you are happy with the PR, feel free to merge it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121551 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
