Szelethus added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: steakhal.
No need for post commit fixes, just general observations since I noticed them.
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp:2427
+ uint64_t ArrSize = CAT->getSize().getLimitedValue();
+ if (ArrSize >
NoQ added a comment.
There's nothing immediately wrong with this patch so no need to revert it. It
makes sense to revert a patch if it breaks buildbots or if there's no fix
coming soon (eg. if we're about to have an entire LLVM release broken). If
there was a revert it would have made sense to
isuckatcs added a comment.
What's out desired approach for that? Create a new patch, or update this one?
Also, should I commit it as usual, or revert this commit first?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128064/new/
https://reviews.llvm
NoQ added a comment.
Another magic number around these parts is 4, which is our loop iteration
budget. If an array is initialized by a loop with unknown bounds, it'll have 4
bindings. So I think it makes sense to reduce the default to 4 just because
weird things may start happening above this t
This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds.
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rG92bf652d4074: [Static Analyzer] Small array binding policy
(authored by isuckatcs).
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
