[cfe-commits] [patch] Add implicit automatic variable dtors for C++ CFG

[Zhongxing Xu]

2010/9/20 Marcin Świderski <marcin.sfider at gmail.com>

> W dniu 20 września 2010 03:25 użytkownik Zhongxing Xu <
> xuzhongxing at gmail.com> napisał:
>
> Hi Marcin,
>>
>> I'll stop working on this and wait for you. Please don't be mad at me. :)
>>
>> 2010/9/20 Zhongxing Xu <xuzhongxing at gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi Marcin,
>>>
>>> I'm sorry that I didn't talk with about this piece of work. I really
>>> should let you work on it. The main reason that I did this is because I have
>>> the impression that you might be busy and only have time to work on this at
>>> the week end. I just want to accelerate the progress in this area. No
>>> offense.
>>>
>>> No handling of other language constructs is because we want to keep the
>>> patches small.
>>>
>>> 2010/9/20 Marcin Świderski <marcin.sfider at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 2010/9/18 Zhongxing Xu <xuzhongxing at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds automatic variable's dtors to the CFG. It uses
>>>>> LocalScope to
>>>>> record the automatic variables in each scope. When building the CFG,
>>>>> CleanupPoints are inserted at ReturnStmt, CompoundStmt and GotoStmt.
>>>>>
>>>>> After the building process, dtors are inserted into the cleanup points.
>>>>>
>>>>> To hook up the LocalScope when entering a CompoundStmt, now autoCreate
>>>>> a block.
>>>>> This may potentially create redundant blocks. But I think it's easy to
>>>>> remove
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some code is tricky. It is so to guarantee the correct order the dtors
>>>>> are
>>>>> inserted. I'm not sure they are the best approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Later we would add an option to control the CFG build option. Currently
>>>>>
>>>>> adding implicit dtors are disabled. If it is enabled, some c++ test
>>>>> cases would
>>>>> fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some test cases that this patch can handle are attached. They can be
>>>>> tested by changing
>>>>>
>>>>> if (BuildOpts.AddImplicitDtors) {
>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>> if (true) {
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to be rude, but I don't like that you've hijacked topic I
>>>> was working on.
>>>> Is this normal practice on this project? If you (or somebody else)
>>>> thinks that
>>>> I shouldn't work on this please contact me before doubling my work.
>>>>
>>>> As for the patch I see no handling of:
>>>> - implicit scopes in if/else/for/while/do/switch,
>>>> - condition variables in if/while/for/switch,
>>>> - temporaries with lifetime extended by binding to const reference.
>>>>
>>>> Marcin
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I work on this for my MSc. During last week I had to write some text for
> it to
> show progress. I will try to work more on coding. It would be really
> helpful
> if you would not commit your patch as it differs greatly from what I have
> prepared (as you saw in may, too big, patch).
>
> Marcin
>

Sure. I'll suspend it. Thank you for working on this!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20100920/dc12cfc2/attachment.html>