Skip to content

Conversation

pfultz2
Copy link
Contributor

@pfultz2 pfultz2 commented Sep 16, 2025

No description provided.

Copy link

@firewave
Copy link
Collaborator

Seems to have no performance impact.

Differences from #7800:

--- selfcheck.exp       2025-09-16 19:07:40.536686518 +0200
+++ selfcheck.res       2025-09-16 19:10:17.478078548 +0200
@@ -12375,15 +12375,15 @@
   = always 0
   0 always 0
 Line 1366
-  ch possible {symbolic=(next),symbolic=(end),0,62@103}
+  ch possible {symbolic=(next),symbolic=(end),0,92,62@103}
   != {!<=-1,!>=2,0}
   end possible {symbolic=(ch),62@103}
   && {!<=-1,!>=2,0}
-  ch {!symbolic=(end),0}
+  ch {!symbolic=(end),0,92}
   != {!<=-1,!>=2,1}
   '\r' always 13
   && {!<=-1,!>=2,0}
-  ch {!symbolic=(end),0,!13}
+  ch {!symbolic=(end),0,!13,92}
   != {!<=-1,!>=2,1}
   '\n' always 10
   && {!<=-1,!>=2,0}
@@ -13626,6 +13626,8 @@
   tok2 possible symbolic=(tok->next)
 Line 2108
   true always 1
+Line 2109
+  . possible symbolic=(tok2)
 Line 2112
   & {lifetime[Address]=(temp),!0}
 Line 2113
@@ -15074,7 +15076,7 @@
 Line 2872
   "code point too large" always "code point too large"
 Line 2876
-  narrow always {!<=-1,!>=2}
+  narrow {!<=-1,!>=2,0}
   || always {!<=-1,!>=2}
   utf8 always {!<=-1,!>=2}
   && always {!<=-1,!>=2}

The change on Line 2109 seems suspect. I only realize that because I had the same diff with an unintentional issue I temporally introduced in another PR - see #7768 (comment).

@pfultz2
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfultz2 commented Sep 19, 2025

@chrchr-github @danmar @orbitcowboy Can this be merged?

copyOnWrite();

for (auto&& p : (*pm.mValues)) {
if (skipUnknown) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this called skipUnknown? It seems to skip uninit values.

for (const auto& p : pm)
origins[p.first.getExpressionId()] = origin;
state.replace(std::move(pm));
state.replace(std::move(pm), true);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add the parameter name: /*param*/ true

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants