On Aug 11, 2011, at 15:42, Ted Kremenek wrote: > ]As for not many symbols having multiple dependents, I don't think that's a > valid assumption. The whole point of this addition was to give checkers the > ability to tie two symbols together (e.g., parameter out value and a return > value). There's no reason why there can't be multiple dependents. Even if > it's just two checkers that need to track dependencies between a common > symbol and another, two is still more than one.
Sorry, I meant multiple dependenCIES. My bad. With the dependency capabilities in this commit we have "this symbol survives if ANY of its base symbols are alive", and no way to express "all of its base symbols". I think we might want to say that multiple dependencies = undefined behavior. Jordy _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
