njames93 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/Support/ManagedStatic.h:25
+// that are const with no params.
+template <typename T> struct HasRetainRelease {
+private:
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> njames93 wrote:
> > dblaikie wrote:
> > > Are there many uses that rely on this? I don't think it's really worth
> > > all this infrastructure - compared to having it supported on an as-needed
> > > basis, such as directly in TrueMatcherImpl's ctor and dtor.
> > It doesn't work in TrueMatcherImpl ctor/dtor due to the whole double free
> > issue(See [[ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92480#inline-864517 | previous
> > comment ]]). I can go back to just supporting it for TrueMatcherImpl by
> > writing a single custom creator/deleter for that class.
> >
> > This approach taken was a little overkill but likely a little more
> > foolproof for someone using the library. I'll go ahead with whichever
> > approach you would prefer.
> Ah, right - thanks for walking me through it again, now I better understand
> your previous comment - sorry for that erroneous suggestion/confusion.
>
> Fair points all.
>
> Given all that, I'm sort of leaning towards the idea that maybe the right
> solution here is for the `TrueMatcherInstance` bear the cost of the
> complexity here (if it's the only one) with something like:
>
> ```
> struct TrueMatcherImplCreator {
> static void *call() {
> return new IntrusiveRefCntPtr<TrueMatcherImpl>(new TrueMatcherImpl());
> }
> };
> static llvm::ManagedStatic<IntrusiveRefCntPtr<TrueMatcherImpl>,
> TrueMatcherImplCreator> TrueMatcherInstance;
> ```
>
> I worry about creating a fairly generic extension point for customizing how
> elements in ManagedStatic can be constructed and destroyed via specialization
> rather than via explicit creator/destroyer parameters.
>
> And while the custom destroyer is a bit simpler mechanically (doesn't involve
> dynamically allocating an IntrusiveCntPtr, which is unintuitive to say the
> least) - I think sticking to the "if you ever share ownership of a
> RefCountedBase object, you must've allocated it with 'new' and be really
> sharing ownership - no lies" is probably a healthier model for
> RefCountedBase/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.
Decided to take a step back. This is trying to fix a problem that's only here
because we are using a `ManagedStatic`. when its not needed. A function scope
static has nearly the same semantics of `ManagedStatic` and as this is only
used in one function it seems a much better fit.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92480/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92480
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
