[PATCH] D20776: [CFLAA] Teach cfl-aa to understand heap memory allocation

[Jia Chen via llvm-commits]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> Sure it is. It is safe to give conservatively correct answers,  even if you
> don't incrementally recompute.

You are right. I take back what I said before. That was a strong and
blind statement.

> What transformation do you think can occur that would make the points-to set
> not conservatively correct, but retain the semantics of the original
> program?

I can't find anything on top of my head. Maybe there doesn't exist any.

I'm not convinced that such kind of transformation must not be
presented or will not be presented in the future. But for now, I agree
that values not presented in StratifiedSets should be treated
conservatively.

I do feel suspicious about the fact that unused values are not added
to StratifiedSets in the first place. But with respect to this patch,
that's probably a tangential topic.