steakhal added a comment. In D158499#4606337 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158499#4606337>, @danix800 wrote:
> In D158499#4606291 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158499#4606291>, @steakhal > wrote: > >> Thanks for submitting this. >> A funny thing is that in my free time I was also working on this last week. >> I'll have a look at this more in depth during the week. >> For the mean time here is my version, committed pretty much a couple days >> ago to my fork. >> https://github.com/steakhal/llvm-project/commit/986059a146e036ec84db64868a079d3c4a0e5e16 >> >> EDIT: fix the link to point to my fork. >> >> Your proposed change looks pretty similar to mine. > > Are you going to submit your changes? Which one do you think is more suitable? > > Please let me know whether I should continue on this one or wait for yours. > Thanks! I think the difference between yours and my implementation is that I try to accept FAM like arrays even if they are nested inside other strict, if they are notionally the last field of the whole thing. I'm doing it because that is how the machines work, thus the model should model that and return the right extent even for those cases. What I can tell, that I didn't check my implementation with the packed attribute. I assume it should work. The decl has a tempting method checking if its a FAM, however that does not accept FAMs of size 1 or of any size. So its hard to tell right away which approach is better, but I'll look into this. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158499/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158499 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
