krememek added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12358#234949, @zaks.anna wrote:
> > I accept that my current patch is not a comprehensive solution to the > > problem and that it may introduce > false positives, however I do think it > > is an improvement, where it is preferable to have false positives > > > over doing no analysis after the loop. > > > We try to avoid false positives as much as possible. They are very painful > for users to deal with. > > > In my experience, constant bound loops are normally used to make simple > > modifications to fixed > > > length collections of data, I think the behaviour of the majority of these > > loops will be represented by > > > the first and last iteration. > > > The main issue with the patch is that it produces a false path on which value > of only one of the variables is reset to the last iteration of the loop and > the rest of them are set as if it is the 3d iteration. A way to solve this is > to compute what can be invalidated by the loop and set those to unknown > values (a widening operation). > > You should develop this feature behind a flag. This would allow for > incremental development and simplify evaluation. I agree this should be under a flag, or more specifically, an -analyzer-config option. http://reviews.llvm.org/D12358 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
