=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>,
=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>,
=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>,
=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112...@github.com>
================
@@ -299,13 +299,12 @@ ANALYZER_OPTION(
ANALYZER_OPTION(
bool, ShouldEagerlyAssume, "eagerly-assume",
- "Whether we should eagerly assume evaluations of conditionals, thus, "
- "bifurcating the path. This indicates how the engine should handle "
- "expressions such as: 'x = (y != 0)'. When this is true then the "
- "subexpression 'y != 0' will be eagerly assumed to be true or false, thus "
- "evaluating it to the integers 0 or 1 respectively. The upside is that "
- "this can increase analysis precision until we have a better way to lazily
"
- "evaluate such logic. The downside is that it eagerly bifurcates paths.",
+ "If this is enabled (the default behavior), when the analyzer encounters "
+ "a comparison operator or logical negation, it immediately splits the "
+ "state to separate the case when the expression is true and the case when "
+ "it's false. The upside is that this can increase analysis precision until
"
+ "we have a better way to lazily evaluate such logic; the downside is that "
+ "it eagerly bifurcates paths.",
----------------
whisperity wrote:
My problem is that it does not explain well **why** it is a downside,
considering we have a strong claim _"increases analysis precision"_ in the
other sentence.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112209
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
