On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Ted Kremenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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? > Yes, it should be StoreManagers. But in a broader sense, anything that wants an AllocaRegion created are burdened. > > - 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
