Szelethus added a comment. In D79704#2029305 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79704#2029305>, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> Thank you for quickly looking into this. > > In D79704#2029230 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79704#2029230>, @Szelethus wrote: > > > - What identifies a `MemRegion`, `TypedValueRegion`s in particular? Why are > > parameters so special that they deserve their own region? Do you have a > > concrete, problematic example? > > > `ParamRegion` contains different data: mainly the index of the parameter. > This makes it independent of the actual `Decl` of the parameter. > > > - Why is it an issue that we don't always use the same declaration? Does > > this result in a crash, incorrect modeling? > > See D49443#1193290 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D49443#1193290>. > > > - Why are we making `ParamRegion` **not** a subclass of `VarRegion`? > > Because `VarRegion` is a `DeclRegion` which stores the `Decl` of the > variable. Here the main purpose is to not to store it. To me that sounds like a technicality. Sure, inheriting from `VarRegion` would make you carry around a field or two you may not need/use, but is that a big deal? To me it feels like all the problems you're solving should be an implementation detail. The interface of `ParamRegion` looks like a superset of `VarRegion`'s. The code changes suggests that every time we're interested in a `VarRegion`, we're also interested in parameters. I may not see the obvious just yet, but I invite you to correct me! :) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79704/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79704 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
