mehdi_amini marked 6 inline comments as done.
mehdi_amini added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:2293
/// If ExcludeCtor is true, the duration when the object's constructor runs
-/// will not be considered. The caller will need to verify that the object is
-/// not written to during its construction.
+/// will not be considered (unless trivial). The caller will need to verify
that
+/// the object is not written to during its construction.
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This comment change suggests that when `ExcludeCtor` is true, a trivial
> constructor is considered. That's the opposite of what this change does --
> namely, a trivial constructor is not considered regardless of the value of
> `ExcludeCtor`.
Yep your right. I removed all the changes here.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:2437-2445
+ bool HasMutableField = false;
+ if (Context.getLangOpts().CPlusPlus) {
+ if (const CXXRecordDecl *Record =
+ Context.getBaseElementType(D->getType())->getAsCXXRecordDecl())
+ HasMutableField = Record->hasMutableFields();
+ }
+
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This duplicates much of the work done by `isTypeConstant`.
Indeed, thanks for pointing this, this simplifies a lot!
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:2448-2451
+ if (InitExpr) {
+ GV->setLinkage(llvm::GlobalValue::AvailableExternallyLinkage);
+ GV->setInitializer(EmitConstantInit(*InitDecl));
+ }
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> In order for this transformation to be correct, you need to know that the
> variable has static initialization, which means that it needs to formally
> have a constant initializer. You can use `D->isInitKnownICE()` to check this.
Done! But couldn't find how to express it as a test-case though.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34992
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
