On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Erik Verbruggen wrote: > Attached is probably the last one in the series.
The patch looks good. > After that patch, there are two calls to ExprEngine::Visit left. One is in > ExprEngine::ProcessStmt, but will have to stay there. The other one is in > AggExprVisitor, called from ExprEngine::VisitAggExpr. This last one is only > called from disabled code in ExprEngine::VisitCXXConstructExpr. Is it safe to > remove this code too? I'd keep the dead code. Looks like it's the C++ support which is just waiting to be improved and productized. Thanks, Anna. > > > -- Erik. > > <0001-Remove-unnecessary-recursive-visits-for-ExprWithClea.patch> > > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:21, Ted Kremenek wrote: > >> LGTM. >> >> On Mar 5, 2012, at 4:09 AM, Erik Verbruggen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> This time in the VisitCXXConstructExpr method. >>> >>> -- Erik. >>> >>> <0001-Removes-more-recursive-visitations-in-ExprEngine-tha.patch>_______________________________________________ >>> cfe-commits mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
