steakhal added a comment. In D139534#4034719 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139534#4034719>, @xazax.hun wrote:
>> Here is the gist of one *new* TP: > > Where would `sprops` get escaped? Did I miss that or was that reduced out of > the example? You are right, it 'never' escapes, yet in the past we modelled all stores to local statics as an 'immediate escape'. This is what I think we should not do. And this is what this patch removes. > Overall, this looks like a hard nut to crack. Escaping too much or too little > are both problematic, and we don't have the information we need to make the > decision. The question is whether we want to make an absolute decision or > come up with a heuristic like: > > static int* p; > MyStruct reachable(&p); > > indirect(&reachable); > direct(&p); > > escaping when `direct` is called, but not escaping when `indirect` is called. > > Do you see any patterns in the real-world results that would show a pattern? > I am not opposed to making a change, but I wonder if we should start > documenting these decisions somewhere that are likely need revision in the > future when we have more data. What do you think? I've seen only those 3 diffs: 2 new 1 absent issues. But there could be projects which make use of local static variables a lot. It was the case with one of our customers, but I cannot comment on that. I could somehow find open-source projects affected, but I'm not sure if it would be easy unless you have projects in mind. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139534 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
