Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "enable_shared_from_thi".
Did you mean:
enable_shared_from_this
2019 Aug 29
2
enable_shared_from_this fails at runtime when inherited privately
Hello,
I just discovered, that, when using enable_shared_from_this and
inheriting it privately, this fails at runtime.
I made a small example:
#include <memory>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/make_shared.hpp>
#include <boost/enable_shared_from_this.hpp>
#ifndef prefix
#define prefix std
#endif
class foo:
prefix::e...
2019 Aug 29
2
enable_shared_from_this fails at runtime when inherited privately
Am 29.08.19 um 12:07 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 10:15, Christian Schneider
> <cschneider at radiodata.biz> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> I just discovered, that, when using enable_shared_from_this and
>> inheriting it privately, this fails at runtime.
>> I made a small example:
>>
>> #include <memory>
>> #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
>> #include <boost/make_shared.hpp>
>> #include <boost/enable_shared_from_this.hpp>
>>...
2014 Sep 10
4
[LLVMdev] Leaks in PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build ?
...; While I'm not sure where the leak is, using some pre-canned memory
> management might help...
>
> Attached is a patch that changes this allocation to use shared_ptr,
> perhaps it'll address the bug?
>
> (ideally we shouldn't need the intrusive ref counting
> (std::enable_shared_from_this) but instead have a weak_set that has
> std::weak_ptr in it & implicitly removes elements as they become null
> (probably on a harvesting schedule, rather than with a direct callback as
> is currently implemented))
> pbqp_leak.diff
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0jpkch...
2014 Sep 10
4
[LLVMdev] Leaks in PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build ?
Hi Lang,
In PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build, around line 360, we have code looking like:
…
PBQP::Vector newCosts(g.getNodeCosts(node));
addPhysRegCoalesce(newCosts, pregOpt, cBenefit);
g.setNodeCosts(node, newCosts);
…
I suspect the leak occurs around the setNodeCosts method, and I have trouble understanding how it handles the case where the node already has costs.
It seems to