On Nov 24, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Ted Kremenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Zhongxing,
Why use the GDM to represent the byte extent of an AllocaRegion
instead of storing it directly in the region object itself? I don't
think it's necessarily a bad idea; I'm just curious about the
overall design.
I don't have a definite reason for this. I feel that:
- The extent is not a necessary property of AllocaRegion (or the
necessity has not showed). If we make it part of the AllocaRegion,
that would require all clients provide an extent when creating the
AllocaRegion.
Just to clarify, what do you mean by "clients?" Different
implementations of StoreManager?
- Decoupling the extent of the dynamically allocated region provides
more flexibility. Consider a MallocRegion, whose extent may be
changed by a later realloc(). But its store bindings may not change.
In that case, we can only modify the extent mapping of it.
Makes sense.
- If later we find the extent is an essential property of
AllocaRegion, we can add it back.
Absolutely. I wasn't arguing that we change it. All of this sounds
good to me.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
