parameter with a default value, instead of just hardcoding it in the
implementation. The limit of MaxLookup = 6 was introduced in r69151 to fix
a performance problem with O(n^2) behavior in instcombine, but the scalarrepl
pass is relying on getUnderlyingObject to go all the way back to an AllocaInst.
Making the limit part of the method signature makes it clear that by default
the result is limited and should help avoid similar problems in the future.
This fixes pr6126.
llvm-svn: 94433
the tag kind (union, struct, class, enum) over to the name of the tag,
if there is a name, since most clients want to point at the name.
llvm-svn: 94424
Previously we would just silently miscompile code that used aligned
common's, now at least you'll get a build error. tiger-ppc already
triggered the build error because it didn't have a version of this
logic.
llvm-svn: 94412
(1) libAnalysis is a generic analysis library that can be used by
Sema. It defines the CFG, basic dataflow analysis primitives, and
inexpensive flow-sensitive analyses (e.g. LiveVariables).
(2) libChecker contains the guts of the static analyzer, incuding the
path-sensitive analysis engine and domain-specific checks.
Now any clients that want to use the frontend to build their own tools
don't need to link in the entire static analyzer.
This change exposes various obvious cleanups that can be made to the
layout of files and headers in libChecker. More changes pending. :)
This change also exposed a layering violation between AnalysisContext
and MemRegion. BlockInvocationContext shouldn't explicitly know about
BlockDataRegions. For now I've removed the BlockDataRegion* from
BlockInvocationContext (removing context-sensitivity; although this
wasn't used yet). We need to have a better way to extend
BlockInvocationContext (and any LocationContext) to add
context-sensitivty.
llvm-svn: 94406
asserts in cursor construction functions to make this more obvious.
Doug, please check. c-index-test would previously crash on this code:
--
for(;;) {}
--
Do we need a custom visit of the for statement to cover the variable
declarations?
llvm-svn: 94391
It looks like linux/arm and linux/mips have the same setting, which
are probably wrong. Someone who cares about ARM and MIPS should
investigate with the testcase in PR6129.
llvm-svn: 94381
Bob Wilson