On Oct 27, 2008, at 7:34 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
for example, this would mean that
FunctionDecl would have to have its own NumParams field rather than
looking through its type field to find the number of parameters.
Then,
order of destruction would never matter.
Since Decls shouldn't own Types, this particular example shouldn't
actually be an issue. Are you seeing this to be a problem? Clearly
this means that Types should be destroyed after Decls are, but Types
are released when ASTContext is destroyed (which in TranslationUnit,
occurs after the Decls are released).
Doug just kindly pointed me to an example where Types can depend on
Decls to implement basic functionality.
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20081020/008535.html
I now recall that this occurs in several places (such as in the
Objective-C ASTs), but they don't always appear to create ownership
issues.
I'm not quite certain what is the best solution for this.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
