ymandel marked an inline comment as done.
ymandel added a comment.
Thanks for the review!
================
Comment at:
clang/unittests/Analysis/FlowSensitive/ChromiumCheckModelTest.cpp:122
+ void transfer(const Stmt *S, NoopLattice &, Environment &Env) {
+ M.transfer(S, Env);
+ }
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> I wonder whether the models should actually be called by the framework at
> some point.
> E.g. imagine the following scenario:
> ```
> void f()
> {
> std::optional<int> o(5);
> if (o)
> {
> // dead code here;
> }
> }
> ```
>
> In an ideal case, an analysis could use the `std::optional` modeling to
> realize that the code in the `if` statement is dead and use this fact to
> improve its precision. Explicitly request the modeling in the transfer
> function works OK when we only have a couple things to model. But it might
> not scale in the future. When we model dozens of standard types and functions
> we would not want all the analysis clients to invoke all the transfers for
> all the models individually.
Agreed. It seems similar the problems that motivated DLLs back in the day.
there's clearly a lot to be worked out here in terms of how best to support
composition. It's probably worth a RFC or somesuch to discuss in more depth.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121797/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121797
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
