[llvm-commits] [llvm] r43259 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/Analysis/PostDominators.h lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp lib/VMCore/Dominators.cpp

[Chris Lattner]

On Oct 23, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=43259&view=rev
> Log:
> Make DomTree and PostDomTree thin wrappers around DomTreeBase,  
> rather than inheriting from it.

Very nice!

> @@ -21,17 +21,39 @@
>  /// PostDominatorTree Class - Concrete subclass of DominatorTree  
> that is used to
>  /// compute the a post-dominator tree.
>  ///
> -struct PostDominatorTree : public DominatorTreeBase<BasicBlock> {
> +struct PostDominatorTree : public FunctionPass {
>    static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid
> +  DominatorTreeBase<BasicBlock>* DT;

Is there any reason to new/delete the DT pointer?  Why not just have  
DomTreeBase be embedded by-value?

-Chris