On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > > I think that we should leave destructors for temporaries as an option. Also >> I think we shouldn't optimize elidable constructors and destructors they >> impact in the CFG, because this will force clients to also account for those >> optimizations. This will complicate things without any gain for analysis >> outcome. >> > > To clarify, I didn't optimize away elidable constructors. They are just not > appended as block-level expr. They still exist in the CFG. > > > I haven't had time to look at these set of patches yet, but one high-level > comment is that I thought a key design point was to leave all destructor > calls as block-level exprs. That way we can associate call enter/return > edges with them if we choose to analyze them via inlining. > Yeah, I reverted this patch yesterday.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
