Re: [cdt-dev] Implicit Destructor Names (AST)

[Alena Laskavaia <elaskavaia.cdt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Contructors are, destructors are not called (or called atexit?)

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I thought for globals they were called at the global constructor time
> before main?
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Alena Laskavaia
> <elaskavaia.cdt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Disadvantage is it is good to know when destructor is actually called
>> for static analysis.
>> For globals it never actually called...
>> Are we adding definition only or implicit call into the AST?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Schorn, Markus
>> <Markus.Schorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> My first thought was, that they should be attached to the compound
>>> statement.
>>> However, that does not work for global variables. Therefore, for
>>> simplicity
>>> I suggest to add them to the declarator. I don't see a disadvantage with
>>> this
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> Markus.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukas Felber
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:29 AM
>>>> To: CDT General developers list.
>>>> Subject: [cdt-dev] Implicit Destructor Names (AST)
>>>> Importance: Low
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Since CDT 7.0 (I think), in code statements like 'X x;'
>>>> (where X is a type containing a constructor declaration) the
>>>> declarator x contains an implicit name which refers to X's
>>>> constructor. This is a very useful and also necessary feature!
>>>>
>>>> However, when considering the following code {
>>>>   X x;
>>>> }
>>>> one misses, beside the reference to the constructor of X,
>>>> also a reference to X's destructor, which, for completeness,
>>>> should also be part of the AST.
>>>>
>>>> The question which arises here, is, where this name should
>>>> best be contained.
>>>>  - The simples, but also a bit incorrect option is to put the
>>>> name into the declarator x. This is not really the place
>>>> where the destructor is called, but it is the origin which
>>>> causes the destructor to be called at the end of the
>>>> enclosing compound statement
>>>>  - The more precise place to place the name is the end of the
>>>> end of the enclosing compound statement (which would mean to
>>>> let the interface IASTCompoundStatement extend
>>>> IASTImpliciteNameOwner).
>>>>
>>>> What is your opinion on this matter?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Lukas Felber
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cdt-dev mailing list
>>>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdt-dev mailing list
>>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>>
>