[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [analyzer][clang-tidy][NFC] Clean up eagerly-assume handling (PR #112209)

[via cfe-commits]

=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.nagy at ericsson.com>,
=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.nagy at ericsson.com>,
=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.nagy at ericsson.com>,
=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.nagy at ericsson.com>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112209 at 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