On Jun 2, 2010, at 10:11 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Ted Kremenek <kreme...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Ted Kremenek <kreme...@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:48 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote:
>>
>>> Is it necessary to add all RHS of assignment expr as block-level expr?
>>>
>>> + return addStmt(B->getLHS(), AddStmtChoice::AsLValueNotAlwaysAdd);
>>> + }
>>>
>>> Here better to use visitStmt, because addStmt() means we want to 'add' the
>>> statement. Maybe we should modify some of the existing code to emphasize
>>> this.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's right. The rest of the cases in that method use addStmt() because
>> they introduce real control-flow dependencies. For the assignment operator
>> this isn't need.
>>
>> Zhongxing: I don't think any of the existing cases in that method need to be
>> modified to use VisitStmt() instead of addStmt(), or do you see something?
>>
>> I suggest the following implementation of addStmt.
>>
>> CFGBlock *addStmt(Stmt *S) {
>> return Visit(S, AddStmtChoice::AlwaysAdd);
>> }
>
> That would break a fair number of the existing callers, as some use the
> second argument to indicate that the expression should be treated as an
> lvalue.
>
>
> Maybe those could use VisitStmt directly?
Hmm. Maybe they all should then, and remove addStmt entirely?
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
