On Mar 14, 2012, at 18:22, Anna Zaks wrote: > > 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.
svn rev. #152730. > (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..) Neither am I, but I don't feel confident enough to just kill it. -- Erik.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
