danielmarjamaki added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp:123
+ // Is variable changed anywhere in TU?
+ for (const Decl *D : AMgr.getASTContext().getTranslationUnitDecl()->decls())
{
+ if (isChanged(D, VD))
----------------
danielmarjamaki wrote:
> danielmarjamaki wrote:
> > dcoughlin wrote:
> > > Since you are calling `getInitialStateForGlobalStaticVar()` in
> > > `getInitialState()` for each static variable declaration and
> > > `getInitialState()` is called for each top-level function, you are doing
> > > an n^3 operation in the size of the translation unit, which is going to
> > > be very, very expensive for large translation units.
> > >
> > > Have you considered doing the analysis for static variables that are
> > > never changed during call-graph construction? This should be a linear
> > > operation and doing it during call-graph construction would avoid an
> > > extra walk of the entire translation unit.
> > hmm... could you tell me where the call-graph construction is that I can
> > tweak?
> I think I found it: `clang/lib/Analysis/CallGraph.cpp`
I now track variable modifications in call-graph construction instead.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp:155
+ Children.push(FuncBody);
+ while (!Children.empty()) {
+ const Stmt *Child = Children.top();
----------------
szepet wrote:
> I think instead of this logic it would be better to use ConstStmtVisitor. In
> this case it does quite the same thing in a (maybe?) more structured manner.
> What do you think?
As far as I see ConstStmtVisitor is also recursive. Imho let's have readable
code instead..
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37897
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
