On 12/07/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/07/2017 02:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/29/2017 04:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I've finished reimplementing the patch as a standalone pass.
>>> In the attached revision I also addressed your comments below
>>> as well as Richard's to allowing the strlen optimizations even
>>> for overlapping accesses.
>>>
>>> While beefing up the tests I found a few minor issues that
>>> I also fixed (false negatives).
>>>
>>> The fallout wasn't quite as bad as I thought, mainly thanks
>>> to the narrow API for the checker.
>> So still reading though this, but wanted to start with a question I hope
>> you can answer quickly.
>>
>> In terms of coverage -- did we lose much in terms of cases that were
>> diagnosed in the original version, but aren't in this version?
>
> I'm quite pleased to say that with the pass in the right place
> (after vrp) the coverage is the same.
That's awesome.
Jeff
