xlauko wrote: > TBH, it seems odd that we have a lifetime operation markers, rather than an > actual scope. > > I believe that our lifetime management should be matching to the 'scopes' > that they are in, and better reflect the C/C++ scoping rules? > > SO I guess I would envision more of a `lifetime-scope` thing, that marks the > list of allocas on `entry`. > > But these markers seem too low level entirely.
But you eventually need them when you lower to `ucf` no? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/199599 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
