Not really... Imagine an expression like if (...((a && b) && c ) && ... )
if "a" is false then the evaluation jumps right past all the sub expression and into the main one, and I never get a chance to bind any of them. So I really have to keep "a" alive so that I can then slowly reconstruct (a && b), ((a && b) && c), etc. If you or Ted have no further comments, I'm gonna commit this tomorrow morning then. cheers, pl http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1340 BRANCH tmp ARCANIST PROJECT clang _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
