rsmith added a subscriber: rsmith.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGClass.cpp:1369-1382
@@ +1368,16 @@
+
+ void VisitCallExpr(const Expr *E) {
+ Sensitive = true;
+ }
+ void VisitCXXTypeidExpr(const Expr *E) {
+ Sensitive = true;
+ }
+ void VisitExpr(const Expr *E) {
+ if (E->getStmtClass() == Stmt::CXXTypeidExprClass ||
+ E->getStmtClass() == Stmt::CXXDynamicCastExprClass) {
+ Sensitive = true;
+ }
+ if (!Sensitive)
+ Inherited::VisitExpr(E);
+ }
+ };
----------------
This is not complete; you'll also need to at least consider atomic stores (that
might store the `this` pointer and be picked up by another thread), the
implicit call to `operator new` in a `CXXNewExpr` (which is not modeled as a
`CallExpr`), implicit destructor calls (which aren't modeled in the AST at
all), and probably a lot of other cases.
Maybe it would be simpler to store `undef` to the vptr immediately before
calling the base class destructor, and let the LLVM optimization passes remove
this vptr store as dead if it can prove the vptr is unused?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12366
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
