C++: First-class destructors in AST and IR #15318
Conversation
| /** | ||
| * Gets the `n`th compiler-generated destructor call that is performed after this expression, in | ||
| * order of destruction. | ||
| */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be good to have an example here (specifically, for when there are multiple destructors attached to an element).
| * Gets the `n`th compiler-generated destructor call that is performed after this expression, in | ||
| * order of destruction. | ||
| */ | ||
| DestructorCall getSyntheticDestructor(int n) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we avoid using the term "synthetic" in the public API? I don't actually know why the relational is using this term, because I don't think there's anything more "synthetic" about these destructor calls than other things in the AST
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe getImplicitDestructor instead?
| result = expr.getParentWithConversions() | ||
| or | ||
| result.(Destructor).getADestruction() = expr | ||
| or | ||
| result.(Expr).getASyntheticDestructor() = expr | ||
| or | ||
| result.(Stmt).getASyntheticDestructor() = expr |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it ever the case that an expr has multiple parents with these new cases included?
| ( | ||
| call instanceof ConstructorCall or | ||
| call instanceof DestructorCall | ||
| ) and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The comment above here is no longer correct, right? i.e., this part:
// Don't bother with destructor calls for now, since we won't see very many of them in the IR
// until we start injecting implicit destructor calls.
rdmarsh2
force-pushed
the
rdmarsh2/cpp/first-class-destructors
branch
from
99b4e63
to
278b22c
Compare
This PR adds a new
getSyntheticDestructorpredicate toStmtandExpr, and adds destructors to the IR. Currently only theStmtrelation is populated by the extractor.