I'm confused. Why does fixing LETs depend on temp. destructor inlining? I realize that we were inlining LET destructors before, but I don't think that regression is the immediate one to fix—turning on general inlining of temporary destructors invites much more mayhem (as discussed in the other thread).
Jordan On Aug 6, 2014, at 6:50 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > Jordan, I think this is the next topic we need to address (as the lifetime > extended temporaries solution would depend on temp dtor inlining working). If > you think it helps I can put it under a flag for now? > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > Added more tests, and a FIXME for the parameter passing test. > Addressed review comments. > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D4740 > > Files: > lib/Analysis/LiveVariables.cpp > lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CallEvent.cpp > lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp > lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngineCallAndReturn.cpp > lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ProgramState.cpp > lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp > test/Analysis/temporaries.cpp >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
