On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Erik Verbruggen wrote: > > 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? >
A comment mentioning linearized CFG is a good idea. (After looking at the code briefly, I am not sure if AggExprVisitor is needed at all. It looks like it's main purpose is to perform recursive visitation..) Anna. > -- 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
