ryanofsky marked 4 inline comments as done. ryanofsky added a comment. In D87629#2280475 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87629#2280475>, @ajtowns wrote:
> AJ, maybe this discussion could moved to another issue? I find the details hard to follow, so having another issue would be helpful just to understand what changes you might be requesting. Of course if I am doing something wrong with changes in this changeset definitely let me know. > I mean, if I'm using ASSERT_CAPABILITY in the first place, it's because I'm > already getting false positives. It probably would help to have a precise definition of "false positive" but I don't think the main use of ASSERT_CAPABILITY is to eliminate mistakes in the analysis. I'd say the main use is to provide the analysis new information it doesn't have another way to know about. More specifically the purpose is to add a capability from the dynamic capability set to the static set (D87629#2272676 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87629#2272676>) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87629/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87629 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
