On Jan 18, 2013, at 18:55 , Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> - if (Call && doesNotFreeMemory(Call, State)) >> + if ((Kind == PSK_DirectEscapeOnCall || >> + Kind == PSK_IndirectEscapeOnCall) && >> + doesNotFreeMemory(Call, State)) { >> >> This is not correct. Before, this branch was only taken if the Kind is >> PSK_DirectEscapeOnCall. Indirect escapes can still possibly free memory >> (although it's unlikely). >> > > Jordan, > > I think the condition is correct. In fact, this is the whole point of this > commit. > For example, previously, we would assume that a call to > foo_that_does_not_free_memory(p+1), could free memory. > > Branden, can you add a test case that shows this? I know the test cases in > the second patch rely on this, but a self contained example would make the > change explicit. (Ex: you could call a function from a system header and pass > it p+1.)
...ah. Okay, right. Carry on.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
