vsavchenko added a comment.
Awesome!
I know, I said that we are ready to land, but I think I was too excited about
this change. We probably should have some data on how it performs on real-life
codebases.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:1559
+ // absolute minimum.
+ LLVM_NODISCARD ProgramStateRef simplifyEquivalenceClass(
+ ProgramStateRef State, EquivalenceClass Class, SymbolSet ClassMembers) {
----------------
Maybe it should be a `simplify` method of the class itself?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:1568-1573
+ EquivalenceClass ClassOfSimplifiedSym =
+ EquivalenceClass::find(State, SimplifiedMemberSym);
+ // We are about to add the newly simplified symbol to the existing
+ // equivalence class, but they are known to be non-equal. This is a
+ // contradiction.
+ if (DisequalClasses.contains(ClassOfSimplifiedSym))
----------------
I think we can add a method `isDisequalTo` or just use `areEqual` in a this way:
are equal?
[Yes] -> nothing to do here
[No] -> return nullptr
[Don't know] -> merge
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:1566-1569
+ ConstraintRangeTy Constraints = State->get<ConstraintRange>();
+ for (std::pair<EquivalenceClass, RangeSet> ClassConstraint : Constraints) {
+ EquivalenceClass Class = ClassConstraint.first;
+ SymbolSet ClassMembers = Class.getClassMembers(State);
----------------
martong wrote:
> vsavchenko wrote:
> > You don't actually use constraints here, so (let me write it in python)
> > instead of:
> > ```
> > [update(classMap[class]) for class, constraint in constraints.items()]
> > ```
> > you can use
> > ```
> > [update(members) for class, members in classMap.items()]
> > ```
> Actually, trivial equivalence classes (those that have only one symbol
> member) are not stored in the State. Thus, we must skim through the
> constraints as well in order to be able to simplify symbols in the
> constraints.
> In short, we have to iterate both collections.
>
Ah, I see. Then I would say that your previous solution is more readable (if
we keep `simplify`, of course).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103314/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103314
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
