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

["Schorn, Markus" <Markus.Schorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The function references in the AST will not occur in the order they are 
actually executed. A simple example is 'C c= f();', where the function call
is executed before the call to the constructor. The same holds basically for
any overloaded binary operator.
Therefore I don't see the requirement that the implicit names in the ast have
to reflect the order of execution.
Markus.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: laskava@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:laskava@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Alena Laskavaia
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:42 PM
> To: Schorn, Markus
> Cc: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Implicit Destructor Names (AST)
> 
> Asides from that is intention to add just definition of the 
> destructor or the implicit call also?
> Implicit call should be attached to the end of the block if 
> case we are building control flow, it should not be at the definition.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Schorn, Markus 
> <Markus.Schorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The destructors will be called as a result of returning 
> from main and 
> > as a result of calling std::exit.
> > Markus.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alena Laskavaia
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:30 PM
> >> To: Doug Schaefer
> >> Cc: CDT General developers list.
> >> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Implicit Destructor Names (AST)
> >>
> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cdt-dev mailing list
> >> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> >>
> >
>