On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:41 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:37 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:28 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Can you add an assertion at the end of a block that there are no >>> outstanding temporary destructors in the current stack frame? That seems >>> useful. >>> >>> Do you mean at the end of a VisitBlockDecl? >> >> No, during the path-sensitive run, so handleBlockExit. >> >> So you mean at the end of a CFG block? But here we might have outstanding >> temporary dtors open (?) > > Oops, right. Was thinking too much in terms of AST structure. How about at > the end of a function (inlined or not)? > > Could we say every time we transition from a block with a temp dtor > terminator to a block that does not have a temp dtor terminator (or an > unconditional terminator) we check?
That sounds correct, but misses the case where we built the CFG wrong (forgetting to add the branch in the correct place and thus never getting to the temp dtor block at all).
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
