[cfe-dev] Working on the rest of PR10063: destructors and the CFG are causing issues with -Wreturn-type

[Ted Kremenek]

On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:22 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:

> I think this patch is a really useful improvement in accuracy, but it does add some non-trivial overhead to the process of adding implicit destructors into the CFG for automatic variables.. Does it seem acceptable? I don't see particularly cleaner ways of doing this... =/

I think this is a reasonable approach.

By non-trivial overhead, are you talking about something that is actually measurable in terms of -fsyntax-only time?  Do you have any numbers?

> 
> If this patch is OK, or after any performance tuning you'd like to see here, I think I also better understand the FIXME in the analysis file. Do you actually want to switch the CFG to have *no* successors for blocks which contain a no-return element? 

No at all.  That's definitely not the invariant we are going for.  We want all blocks to be reverse-reachable from the exit block.  This is needed for servicing reverse dataflow analyses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20110912/bde6dc44/attachment.html>