On 14 mrt. 2012, at 17:57, Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Should I commit the patch as-is, or add a comment that the recursive visit should be removed in the future? -- Erik >> >> >> -- 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
