NoQ added a comment. Interesting. Might it be that in this scenario in order to be of interest to the user the condition value has to be trackable back to the current stack frame?
> the popular feedback we hear from some of our users, namely that they can > never have too much information They should try `prune-paths=false` in C++. Hundreds of inlined copy-constructors will definitely give them the desired experience ;) ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:1931-1933 + // If the condition was a function call, we likely won't gain much from + // tracking it either. Evidence suggests that it will mostly trigger in + // scenarios like this: ---------------- Let's make it clear that this decision is purely stochastic: we can totally build an artificial example where this results in bad behavior but we've never seen one in practice. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116597/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116597 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
