dcoughlin added a comment. > @dcoughlin As a reviewer of both patches - could you tell us what's the > difference between them? And how are we going to resolve this issue?
These two patches are emitting markers in the CFG for different things. Here is how I would characterize the difference between the two patches. - Despite its name, https://reviews.llvm.org/D15031, is really emitting markers for when the lifetime of a C++ object in an automatic variable ends. For C++ objects with non-trivial destructors, this point is when the destructor is called. At this point the storage for the variable still exists, but what you can do with that storage is very restricted by the language because its contents have been destroyed. Note that even with the contents of the object have been destroyed, it is still meaningful to, say, take the address of the variable and construct a new object into it with a placement new. In other words, the same variable can have different objects, with different lifetimes, in it at different program points. - In contrast, the purpose of this patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D16403) is to add markers for when the storage duration for the variable begins and ends (this is, when the storage exists). Once the storage duration has ended, you can't placement new into the variables address, because another variable may already be at that address. I don't think there is an "issue" to resolve here. We should make sure the two patches play nicely with each other, though. In particular, we should make sure that the markers for when lifetime ends and when storage duration ends are ordered correctly. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D16403 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
