NagyDonat wrote:
It turns out that this commit increases the runtime by ~3% on a set of 6-8 open
source projects that we used as a benchmark. (The testing was done on our local
fork by @gamesh411, he can provide more accurate data if needed.) Based on
this, we decided to temporarily disable th
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111843
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
steakhal wrote:
> > Is it a possible way forward dropping that assert?
>
> The function that performs the assertion is not part of the static analyzer,
> it's a generic graph algorithm from an LLVM support library and the assertion
> seems to be a really obvious sanity check. I don't think tha
NagyDonat wrote:
> Is it a possible way forward dropping that assert?
The function that performs the assertion is not part of the static analyzer,
it's a generic graph algorithm from an LLVM support library and the assertion
seems to be a really obvious sanity check. I don't think that it's re
steakhal wrote:
And the message I wanted to share xD
Is it a possible way forward dropping that assert?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111843
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
steakhal wrote:
> If someone happens to be heavily affected by this performance loss (and
> doesn't fear the crashes) they can re-enable ExplodedNode reclamation by
> passing -analyzer-option graph-trim-interval=1000 (the old default) to the
> analyzer.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an
