ChuanqiXu9 wrote: > @ChuanqiXu9, I just ran across this PR -- and I immediately wondered if it > could be used to improve stack-use-after-free checks for `folly::result` (the > short-circuiting coro you saw on my recent PR). > > Like the classes you mention in the PR description here, `folly::result` has > many reasonable "coro" and "coro wrapper" uses, and it would be onerous to > annotate every wrapper usage as `coro_wrapper`. > > What did you envision the effect of adding `coro_wrapper` to a class would be > on lifetime checks? > > Can you walk me through your reasoning / expected usage?
I think it makes sense to add `coro_wrapper` to classes. The reasoning is, the behavior of coroutine is controlled by its promise_type. And generally in practice, we have the consistent promise_type for the same return type, which is the class I mentioned here. So given the coroutines have the same behavior, it should be helpful to add these attributes to the class. And of course, as I said, it is best to add this to the promise_type, but it is not conflicting. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93268 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
