[PATCH] D12358: [Analyzer] Handling constant bound loops

[Sean Eveson via cfe-commits]

seaneveson added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12358#234949, @zaks.anna wrote:

> We try to avoid false positives as much as possible. They are very painful for users to deal with.




> You should develop this feature behind a flag. This would allow for incremental development and simplify evaluation.


I absolutely want to minimize false positives, but I also want to make a start on just doing something after the loop, where the solution could then be improved upon. Developing behind a flag seems to be an ideal solution to me.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12358#234975, @krememek wrote:

> I think the functionality started here by doing something clever with loops is complex enough to warrant putting this into a separate .cpp file.


Good idea.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12358#234986, @krememek wrote:

> I do wonder if nested loops will cause a problem here


Yes the patch only works with the inner most loop. A fix to this should ideally prevent inner loops being analyzed again from an identical state. I haven’t looked into if this will ‘just happen’ as a result of the framework, or how to do it otherwise.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12358#234977, @krememek wrote:

> I think we’d all be quite amendable for this work to go in under a flag, with further improvements going in on top of that.  That way we can all collectively start hashing this out in trunk instead of feature creeping a patch.


If I refactor this patch in its current state into a separate file and put it behind a flag, would it then be acceptable?  I would then like to take some time to look at the invalidation improvements as discussed in this thread.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D12358