On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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). > Sorry, I answered on the other thread in the hope to resolve the issues. Let's continue to discuss there. > > 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
