NoQ closed this revision. NoQ added a comment. Committed as rG2d3668c997faac1f64cd3b8eb336af989069d135 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG2d3668c997faac1f64cd3b8eb336af989069d135> (broken phabricator link).
Yes, great, thanks!, sounds like the right thing to do. I guess the next potential step is to set up syntactic analysis that would tell us whether the function *could have* deallocated memory or stored it for later deallocation. One trivial step would be to scan for free()/delete invocations with the parameter variable as an argument. That would probably turn the feature into a strict improvement that we can turn on by default. The next step would be to figure out what could constitute an escape; a binding to non-local storage might be a good first approximation but i'm not sure how to cover potentially-escaping functions which is probably the most beneficial part. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D105819/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D105819 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
