NoQ added a comment.
In D72018#1803144 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72018#1803144>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> I expect not to have too many functions that need such exclusions. It was
> more about making it easier to do some exclusions without touching the
> analyzer. I will ask around what are the preferences of the team, maybe
> Artem's proposal will work for us.
I think it ultimately makes sense to introduce analyzer IPA hints ("please
inline this function", "please evaluate this one conservatively", "please don't
model effects of this function on checker state", etc.), given that otherwise
our set of heuristics on this subject is incomprehensible.
But if you have a chance to hardcode a small list of legacy functions with
weird behavior (that cannot be expressed with annotations; maybe add explicit
modeling for such functions) and use the analyzer //enforce// the lack of other
exceptional functions (so that everything else was expressible with
annotations), that should be the way to go simply because it makes your
function surfaces much easier to reason about for the programmer.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72018/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72018
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
