llvm dev - May 2009 - [LLVMdev] TableGen Object Ownership

I'm adding some new operators to TableGen and I've run into a memory
ownership
issue.

We have all of these Inits and RecTys flying around but I don't see any
scheme
to assign ownership.  It looks like we're leaking memory all over.

This is getting worse as I'm adding operators because I need to create new
objects on-the-fly and/or return operands of operators as the result of
the folding of the operation.

Is there an ownership scheme or should we consider smart pointers or a similar 
mechanism?

                                -Dave

On May 12, 2009, at 9:21 AM, David Greene wrote:
> I'm adding some new operators to TableGen and I've run into a
memory
> ownership
> issue.
>
> We have all of these Inits and RecTys flying around but I don't see  
> any scheme
> to assign ownership.  It looks like we're leaking memory all over.
>
> This is getting worse as I'm adding operators because I need to  
> create new
> objects on-the-fly and/or return operands of operators as the result  
> of
> the folding of the operation.
Yes, this is horrible.  It would be really nice (tm) if C++ allowed  
you to say "anything derived from this class should be garbage  
collected". Alas, that doesn't exist. :)
> Is there an ownership scheme or should we consider smart pointers or  
> a similar
> mechanism?
I think smart pointers would make sense, though I generally prefer an  
explicit ownership model.  I'm happy with whatever you think is best,

-Chris