mboehme added a comment. In D158977#4623402 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158977#4623402>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> Thanks! Sometimes I am wondering whether we actually need a full map for > PRValues. E.g., once we processed a `MaterializeTemporaryExpr`, we now have a > location for the value, and it feels like we represent the same thing twice, > once in `ExprToLoc + LocToVal` and once in `ExprToVal`. It is probably not > too bad and might be extra work to clean this up. Yes, I think it's probably not worth it. (And note that the `Expr`s in question are different: In the `ExprToVal`, we map the prvalue expression to a value, whereas in `ExprToLoc`, we map the `MaterializeTemporaryExpr` to a location.) I'd say this is just one example of the more general case when a prvalue is consumed by some other expression. For example, when two prvalue integer operands are consumed by a `+` `BinaryOperator`, we could also say that the entries in `ExprToVal` for the operands are now superfluous and could be removed -- but we still keep them around. They might be superfluous, but there aren't typically enough of them to hurt performance (I think?). And they may be useful for debugging. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158977/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158977 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
