================
@@ -1110,13 +1117,14 @@ static bool shouldRunGSLAssignmentAnalysis(const Sema
&SemaRef,
isAssignmentOperatorLifetimeBound(Entity.AssignmentOperator)));
}
-static void checkExprLifetimeImpl(Sema &SemaRef,
- const InitializedEntity *InitEntity,
- const InitializedEntity *ExtendingEntity,
- LifetimeKind LK,
- const AssignedEntity *AEntity, Expr *Init) {
- assert((AEntity && LK == LK_Assignment) ||
- (InitEntity && LK != LK_Assignment));
+static void
+checkExprLifetimeImpl(Sema &SemaRef, const InitializedEntity *InitEntity,
+ const InitializedEntity *ExtendingEntity, LifetimeKind
LK,
+ const AssignedEntity *AEntity,
+ const CapturingEntity *CapEntity, Expr *Init) {
+ assert(!AEntity || LK == LK_Assignment);
+ assert(!CapEntity || LK == LK_LifetimeCapture);
+ assert(!InitEntity || (LK != LK_Assignment && LK != LK_LifetimeCapture));
----------------
bricknerb wrote:
Extracting the TemporaryVisitor and visitLocalsRetained* functions to a
dedicated class would only partially help.
I think the logic that checks [[lifetimebound]] should not have access to data
that is [[lifetime_capture_by]] specific and vice versa.
We could still reuse the common logic, but checkExprLifetimeImpl() API that
tries to handle all cases would make things complex and a single class that
tries to handle all cases would be somewhat similar in that sense.
We could do the refactoring in a separate PR before this change to avoid making
the old issue bigger.
If you still want to push this change first, are you committed to this
refactoring as a follow up?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115921
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
