On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:50 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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). > > Makes sense. Do you have a hint where the right place on function exit to > check it would be? :)
*checks* ExprEngine::processEndOfFunction.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
