Szelethus added a comment.
Actually, one thing might be worth considering. The grand idea is to split up
`NoStoreFuncVisitor` so that its clients only need to define these 3 (quoting
from D105553 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D105553>):
> - What constitutes as a change to an entity
> - What the diagnostic message should be
> - What constitutes as the entity of interest being passed into the function
In the end, in my eye, it would look like this:
<--- NoStateChangeToRegionVisitor <--- NoStoreFuncVisitor
/
NoStateChangeVisitor <---
NoDynamicMemoryOwnershipChangeVisitor
\ /
<--- NoStateChangeToSymbolVisitor
\
<---
NoStreamOwnershipChangeVisitor
- `NoStateChangeVisitor` will ask its clients the above mentioned 3 questions.
- `NoStateChangeToSymbolVisitor` and `NoStateChangeToRegionVisitor` would
answer whether the entity of interest was actually passed into the function,
and propagate the rest.
- Visitors on the bottom would take care of what remains.
With this, or a similar change, visitors handling state changes to regions
would need to know even less about the job that `NoStateChangeToRegionVisitor`
supposedly took over already.
With that said, I don't have another `NoStateChangeToRegionVisitor` in my mind
for the short term future, and even if I did, such a cosmetic encapsulation
could wait for a better thought out solution.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105552/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105552
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
