similar to: Is ArrayRef supposed to be immutable?

+1, totally a bug. That’s the domain of MutableArrayRef. -Chris > On Oct 1, 2017, at 6:52 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +1 seems like a bug > > On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:35 AM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > It wraps a constant T* and a size_t, so

It seems like ArrayRefs are supposed to be immutable ( However, as far as i can tell, the iterators are defined wrong to make this true. While ArrayRef<int> Foo(Something); Foo[0] = 5; will give a compile time error. something like: ArrayRef<int> Foo(Something); std::sort(Foo.begin(), Foo.end()); Will work fine. Is this expected? (FWIW: I expected this to only work with a

It is suggested in the documentation that if you would have declared a function parameter as SmallVector<Foo,N>&, it is better to instead declare it as SmallVectorImpl<Foo>&. This makes sense, but it seems to me that it is better still to declare it as ArrayRef<Foo>; a quick test suggests it compiles to the same (highly efficient) code, and adds a bit more flexibility in

Some background: A while back while working on code to read / write PDB files, I came up with Yet Another Stream Abstraction. Note that LLVM already has a few. Off the top of my head, theres: 1) `MemoryBuffer` and its associated class hierarchy 2) `raw_ostream` and it's associated classes. 3) `DataExtractor` which is used for reading from a StringRef. There's probably more, and

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> On 2014-Aug-21, at 10:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >>> Is there some way we can get lifetime extension of temporaries to kick in >>> here? >>

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > Is there some way we can get lifetime extension of temporaries to kick in > here? Nope - since the temporary is a subexpression - not the thing being declared. > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:05 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yeah - I suspect there are just

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2014-Aug-22, at 10:43, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yep - the convenience of one-element->ArrayRef is "cute" at best, I >> think. Having to wrap it doesn't seem detrimental. Would have to look >> at some numbers,

Hi, I think I ran into a rather subtle bug inside llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h which only shows up when compiling the code with GCC-4.8 with switched-off optimizations. (Both clang and GCC-4.7 don't trigger the bug.) I already filed a bug against GCC-4.8 which was rejected by the GCC-folks as being invalid, because the code (basically ArrayRef.h) "is doing something bad - it's retaining a

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:26 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK here's a patch with the latest, including unit tests. I've also tried > to make the comments clear that this is intended for the case of "generic" > key types, where you are either hashing multiple data types together, or > you

Analyzing why GCC failed to build LLVM recently, one root cause lies in definition of ArrayRef: // ArrayRef.h: ArrayRef(const T &OneElt) : Data(&OneElt), Length(1) {} Here address of const reference is taken and stored to an object. It is believed that live range of const reference is only at the function call site, escaping of its address to an object with a longer live range is invalid.

On Feb 18, 2012, at 1:11 AM, Talin wrote: > + /// Add an ArrayRef of arbitrary data. > + template<typename T> > + GeneralHash& add(ArrayRef<T> ArrayVal) { > + addBits(ArrayVal.begin(), ArrayVal.end()); > + return *this; > + } > > Doesn't this have the same host-specificity problem, except that it will cause things that *are* stable to vary,

David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> writes: > I seem to recall discussing this before - is there an existing llvm > bug filed, another email thread or something (or perhaps it was just > an IRC conversation)? It would be good to keep all the discussion > together or at least reference the prior (llvm community) discussion. I'm not sure if it's been discussed before,

Yeah - I suspect there are just too many cases where we use this ctor correctly: where the ArrayRef is only a temporary to a function call. Perhaps this is a problem for which the best solution is a clang-tidy checker - though I'm not sure if we have good integration there yet. (& yes, Andreas, that looks like the previous thread - thanks!) On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Andreas Weber

Hi, Why is StringRef not an ArrayRef<char> extension? That might simplify some interfaces. Cheers, Paweł -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151105/ef56dcdc/attachment.html>

Haven't got to this but would like to take a look/review it before it goes in. *skimming over some of the description* Sounds like 'stream' might not be the right terminology - since they return pointers into data that (I think) remains valid for the life of the stream? (this also makes me wonder a bit about memory usage if the cross-block operation is used a lot (causing

OK here's a patch with the latest, including unit tests. I've also tried to make the comments clear that this is intended for the case of "generic" key types, where you are either hashing multiple data types together, or you don't know in advance what the data type will be - for cases such as strings where a tailored algorithm is available, you should use that instead of

On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:26 AM, Talin wrote: > OK here's a patch with the latest, including unit tests. I've also tried to make the comments clear that this is intended for the case of "generic" key types, where you are either hashing multiple data types together, or you don't know in advance what the data type will be - for cases such as strings where a tailored algorithm

Hi, I am trying to use some LLVM API in my C++ code, and I end up getting linker errors. I am working on Apple MacOSX Lion. Using g++ for the compile. It is the CreateGlobalStringPtr which is throwing the error. This is LLVM 3.0. Here's the codeI am trying to use some LLVM API in my C++ code, and I end up getting linker errors. I am working on Apple MacOSX Lion. Using g++ for the compile. It

Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue? I'm planning to submit a patch which would add a new get method for ConstantDataVector taking an ArrayRef<Constant*> and use that in the few places in constant propagation where convertToFloat is used. Let me know if you think there is a more obvious way to do it. Right now the only way to create a ConstantDataVector are those method:

Hi all- I am mostly doing work in Clang (and am new there), so I apologize if this isn't the proper place to mention this. I appreciate guidance in advance. I was looking into some of the unit tests, and noticed that the ArrayRefTest.InitializerList, and thus the InitializerList constructor of ArrayRef (under normal use-case) hit undefined behavior. The test does the following: