[llvm] [CaptureTracking] Supports analysis for derived pointers (PR #132744)

[via llvm-commits]

Camsyn wrote:

> We definitely should not be doing this in CaptureTracking -- passing a sensible value is the responsibility of the caller. In most contexts, performing capture checks only makes sense on "identified function-local objects".

If so, should we consider stating this in the comments of `PointerMayBeCaptured`, or renaming it `FuncLocalObjMayBeCaptured` or whatever? 

The name of this function is very misleading, in fact, ThreadSanitizer.cpp and SanitizerBinaryMetadata .cpp have passed an arbitrary pointer, i.e., operand pointer of load/store, to it.

Finally, thanks for your feedback 😀.


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132744