eugenis added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/lib/Analysis/StackSafetyAnalysis.cpp:618 + ConstantRange Access = Found->sextOrTrunc(Use.Range.getBitWidth()); + if (Access.signedAddMayOverflow(C.Offset) != + ConstantRange::OverflowResult::NeverOverflows) ---------------- Do we have a test for this overflow check? ================ Comment at: llvm/lib/Analysis/StackSafetyAnalysis.cpp:924 + if (FS) + FS->setParamAccesses({}); + } ---------------- Why is this necessary? This affects only !live || !dso_local functions, right? The rest is overwritten in the loop below. As I understand, the post-lto function analysis ignores such functions, so that's strictly a space saving thing. Explain what's going on in a comment, and why removing this access data won't cause false positive results. ================ Comment at: llvm/lib/LTO/LTO.cpp:1396 + processParamAccessSummary(ThinLTO.CombinedIndex); + ---------------- Bad name - "process" is meaningless here. Consider "generateParamAccessSummary" ? ================ Comment at: llvm/test/Analysis/StackSafetyAnalysis/ipa-alias.ll:55 +; RUN: -r %t.summ1.bc,Write1,px 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK,GLOBAL,LTO + target datalayout = "e-m:e-i8:8:32-i16:16:32-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128" ---------------- For my education - how do you come up with these symbol lists? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81242/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81242 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits