[PATCH] Implement inlining of temporary destructors.

[Jordan Rose]

I'm confused. Why does fixing LETs depend on temp. destructor inlining? I realize that we were inlining LET destructors before, but I don't think that regression is the immediate one to fix—turning on general inlining of temporary destructors invites much more mayhem (as discussed in the other thread).

Jordan


On Aug 6, 2014, at 6:50 , Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:

> Jordan, I think this is the next topic we need to address (as the lifetime extended temporaries solution would depend on temp dtor inlining working). If you think it helps I can put it under a flag for now?
> 
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
> Added more tests, and a FIXME for the parameter passing test.
> Addressed review comments.
> 
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D4740
> 
> Files:
>   lib/Analysis/LiveVariables.cpp
>   lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CallEvent.cpp
>   lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp
>   lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngineCallAndReturn.cpp
>   lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ProgramState.cpp
>   lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp
>   test/Analysis/temporaries.cpp
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140806/0cdf7cbf/attachment.html>