sammccall added a comment. In D153491#4445051 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153491#4445051>, @ymandel wrote:
> In D153491#4443704 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153491#4443704>, @xazax.hun > wrote: > >> This sounds extremely error-prone to me. In case copying the analysis state >> has side effects like this, I would argue we want such operations to be >> really explicit. What do you think? > > Can you expand on this concern? Are you referring to the removal of the > unintended copy (ie. this patch), or raising a concern about the how the > underlying system handles copies altogether? FWIW I would prefer if we can call this operation clone() or fork() or something rather than have it be the copy constructor. It is a kind of copy but between it being quite expensive, this effect on the SAT system, and intentional copies being quite an important and deliberate thing, making it a bit verbose seems justified. I'll send a patch for this... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153491/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153491 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
