Re: More __comp_ctor () woes

[Brendon Costa <bcosta at avdat dot com dot au>]

Andrew Pinski wrote:

> Why do you need to find (2)?  It is not the function which is actually
> called.  DECL_SAVED_TREE might not be set but that is because it has
> already been gimplified and lowered to CFG at the time you are looking
> through the calls.
>
> Why do you need to know the constructor anyways?
>
>  
Thanks for the reply.

I am creating a tool that allows users to perform static analysis of C++ 
exception propogation. Basically while GCC compiles source, I gather 
certain information that is then embedded as data belonging in a 
seperate section in the asm file. This then produces an object file in 
which my data is placed into a seperate section called ".edoc" which 
allows a post processing tool which extracts this information to 
construct a complete "pessimistic" call graph of source, and it also 
gathers other information about exception try/catch blocks and where the 
function calls are made etc.

I wont go into details about the rest of it because that is not the 
issue here, but in order to construct a call graph one of the things i 
need to do is to follow the CALL_EXPR's from say the main() function 
mentioned in my last email that actuall calls MyClass::__comp_ctor () to 
the fact that the users defined MyClass::MyClass(MyClass* this) function 
is being called.

So i need to know that when in the main function for example i come 
across a CALL_EXPR and the function target for that is a FUNCTION_DECL 
node for the MyClass::__comp_ctor (MyClass* this), this will actually 
call: MyClass::MyClass(MyClass* this). This allows me to construct the 
call graph, otherwise I have a broken link that ends at the __comp_ctor().

Since in the tree there is no implementation for any of the __comp_ctor 
(), __base_ctor (), ... same for dtor() functions. In my data file i 
generate a "fake" call graph link which says that the __comp_ctor () 
calls the MyClass() method.

If there is another way of achiving this I would love to hear it, but I 
have a mostly working implementation already, this is one of the few 
problems i have left to iron out.

Thanks,
Brendon.