zaks.anna added a comment.
Should this revision be closed?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23853
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
szepet abandoned this revision.
szepet added a comment.
At first I was not able to reproduce it. Then I realized it was my foul because
I used the analyzer without the core checkers in this case. Sorry for the false
positive.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23853
_
zaks.anna added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23853#524945, @xazax.hun wrote:
> > Also: I think r270511 is unlikely to be the change that caused this -- that
> > is a change in LLVM's treatment of DebugInfo, which shouldn't affect the
> > analyzer.
>
>
> I think Peter means that, that
xazax.hun added a comment.
> Also: I think r270511 is unlikely to be the change that caused this -- that
> is a change in LLVM's treatment of DebugInfo, which shouldn't affect the
> analyzer.
I think Peter means that, that revision introduced the code that the analyzer
fails to analyze (and
dcoughlin added a comment.
I'm not sure that weakening the assert is the right thing to do here. It seems
like if V is undef that the analyzer ideally ought to have issued a diagnostic
(and a sink) somewhere before. Do you have a test case that reproduces? (It
would be good to add that to the t
