[PATCH] Implement inlining of temporary destructors.

[Manuel Klimek]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:

> 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).
>

Sorry, I answered on the other thread in the hope to resolve the issues.
Let's continue to discuss there.


>
> 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/20140806/650cf48f/attachment.html>