steakhal marked an inline comment as done. steakhal added a comment. In D114622#3200678 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114622#3200678>, @NoQ wrote:
> These checks are almost 2000 lines of code each and it looks like all they do > is figure out if two statements are the same and we have a very flexible > reusable solution for this sort of stuff - `CloneDetector`, but none of them > use it. Your patch demonstrates that they all have the same bugs that need to > be fixed in each of them separately, so reusability seems really valuable. If > I was to work on these checks, the first thing I'd try would be to throw out > their machines and plug in a reusable solution. Well, yes. Ideally, we should remove probably the ClangSA implementation, since it does basically the same thing. Right now I'm focusing on fixing this FP, and I don't really want to tip my toe into anything bigger than that. About the `CloneDetector`, well in February this year we observed that it basically halted an analysis, due to some unfortunate situation. I saw `areSequencesClones()` stringifying QualTypes for hours if not days. We had other priorities to focus, thus we could not get there reproducing and fixing the issue with that, but that could be a potential reason why people don't want to use that. We should really dig into that at some point. For the record, at the time it was analyzing llvm itself, the `AMDGPUAsmParser.cpp` file to be precise. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114622/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114622 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
