xazax.hun added a comment.
I did not check the algorithm as you planned changes to that. I only did a
quick review of the interface which might also be rendered obsolete once you
update this patch.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/Analyses/Dominators.h:191
+
+ CFGDomTree &getCFGDomTree() { return DomTree; }
+ const CFGDomTree &getCFGDomTree() const { return DomTree; }
----------------
Is it sensible to have a non-const reference to the DomTree? Why would the user
want to modify this? I think do not really do transformations on the CFG once
it is built.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/Analyses/Dominators.h:193
+ const CFGDomTree &getCFGDomTree() const { return DomTree; }
+ CFGPostDomTree &getCFGPostDomTree() { return PostDomTree; }
+ const CFGPostDomTree &getCFGPostDomTree() const { return PostDomTree; }
----------------
Same as above.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62619/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62619
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
