On Dec 7, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> // BindDefault is only used to initialize a region with a default value.
>> StoreRef BindDefault(Store store, const MemRegion *R, SVal V) {
>> - RegionBindings B = GetRegionBindings(store);
>> - assert(!lookup(B, R, BindingKey::Default));
>> - assert(!lookup(B, R, BindingKey::Direct));
>> - return StoreRef(addBinding(B, R, BindingKey::Default, V)
>> - .getRootWithoutRetain(), *this);
>> + RegionBindingsRef B = getRegionBindings(store);
>> + assert(!B.lookup(R, BindingKey::Default));
>> + assert(!B.lookup(R, BindingKey::Direct));
>> + return StoreRef(B.addBinding(R, BindingKey::Default, V)
>> + .asImmutableMap()
>> + .getRootWithoutRetain(), *this);
>
> I was thinking about this; I think we should have a
> makeStoreRef(RegionBindingsRef) helper, since we see this pattern so much.
>
I agree.
>
>> // invalidate that region. This is because a block may capture
>> // a pointer value, but the thing pointed by that pointer may
>> // get invalidated.
>> - Store store = B.getRootWithoutRetain();
>> + Store store = B.asImmutableMap().getRootWithoutRetain();
>> SVal V = RM.getBinding(store, loc::MemRegionVal(VR));
>
> This is an unfortunate impedance mismatch.
Impedance mismatch? Please elucidate.
>
>
>> StoreRef RegionStoreManager::BindArray(Store store, const TypedValueRegion*
>> R,
>> @@ -1724,9 +1813,9 @@
>>
>> // There may be fewer values in the initialize list than the fields of
>> struct.
>> if (FI != FE) {
>> - RegionBindings B = GetRegionBindings(newStore.getStore());
>> - B = addBinding(B, R, BindingKey::Default, svalBuilder.makeIntVal(0,
>> false));
>> - newStore = StoreRef(B.getRootWithoutRetain(), *this);
>> + RegionBindingsRef B = getRegionBindings(newStore.getStore());
>> + B = B.addBinding(R, BindingKey::Default, svalBuilder.makeIntVal(0,
>> false));
>> + newStore = StoreRef(B.asImmutableMap().getRootWithoutRetain(), *this);
>> }
>
> Same impedance mismatch in BindStruct, BindVector, and BindArray. For that
> matter, it's worse: we know that all the bindings will happen in a single
> cluster.
Not sure what you mean by impedance mismatch. I do agree that
asImmutableMap().getRootWithoutRetain() chain is gross, and can be sugared up.
Is that what you mean?
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
