=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109...@github.com>
================
@@ -121,6 +121,25 @@ struct EvalCallOptions {
EvalCallOptions() {}
};
+/// Simple control flow statements like `if` only produce a single state split,
+/// so the fact that they are included in the source code implies that both
+/// branches are possible (at least under some conditions) and the analyzer can
+/// freely assume either of them. (This is not entirely true, because there may
+/// be unmarked logical correlations between `if` statements, but is a good
+/// enough heuristic and the analyzer strongly relies on it.)
+/// On the other hand, in a loop the state may be split repeatedly at each
+/// evaluation of the loop condition, and this can lead to following "weak"
+/// assumptions even though the code does not imply that they're valid and the
+/// programmer intended to cover them.
----------------
isuckatcs wrote:
> following "weak" assumptions even though the code does not imply that they're
> valid
If the code doesn't imply them, they shouldn't be assumptions, I guess.
> and the programmer intended to cover them
But he/she didn't, and the analyzer should warn them about it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109804
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
