similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM and "who does delete"

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

Hi, I would like to use std::shared_ptr in my pass. However I'm facing a problem wrt RTTI. If I have a code like: std::shared_ptr<BaseClass> x(new DerivedClass()); ... std::shared_ptr<DerivedClass> p = std::dynamic_pointer_cast<DerivedClass>(x); It does not compile since the default RTTI infrastructure is not used by LLVM. Also, it's not clear to me if the

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::enable_shared_from_this<foo> {

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > > On 18/07/2014 02:21, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> Are people OK with/prefer the use of owning smart pointers in APIs? > > > I think smart pointers are great to use for storage, or as struct members > where there's actually a clear need for ownership. Just by virtue of getting > rid of

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Kramer via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > In terms of performance shared_ptr has a number of disadvantages. One > is that it always uses atomics even though most IntrusiveRefCntPtrs > are used in single-threaded contexts. Another is weak_ptr adding a lot > of complexity to the implementation, IntrusiveRefCntPtr

In the most basic case, I'd imagine something like this: auto C = std::make_shared<LLVMContext>(); struct ModuleAndSharedContextDeleter { std::shared_ptr<LLVMContext> C; operator()(Module *M) { delete M; } /* ctor to init C */}; std::unique_ptr<Module, ModuleAndSharedDeleter> M(new Module(C.get()), ModuleAndSharedContextDeleter(C)); (or invert this and traffic in structs

My experience with LLVM is limited, but I am trying to figure out how to add optimizations for automatic reference counting. The GC documentation mentions that patch-points could be useful, but it does not state how they would be useful. If this is a FAQ, please let me know... So this is my idea at this point: The context is a C++ like language with an aggregate type that is always reference

why llvm contains IntrusiveRefCntPtr instead of using only std::shared_ptr? IntrusiveRefCntPtr widely used in llvm and clang source code. Due to better performance? for example in main func of clang frontend: int cc1_main(ArrayRef<const char *> Argv, const char *Argv0, void *MainAddr) { ensureSufficientStack(); std::unique_ptr<CompilerInstance> Clang(new CompilerInstance());

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Kramer via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> In terms of performance shared_ptr has a number of

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Anton Yartsev <anton.yartsev at gmail.com> writes: > > Hello everyone, > > > > I bring to discussion the necessity/design of a new type of smart > pointer. > > r215176 and r217791 rise the problem, D5443 is devoted to the solution. > > r215176 applies several

Dear users, does any one have a code (S or R) to compute the binormal distribution (or the upper its quadrant area) other than the pmvnorm. Thanks -- Nabil Channouf etudiant en Ph.D. Bureau 3733 Departement d'Informatique et de Recherche Operationnelle (D.I.R.O.) Universite de Montreal, C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-Ville, Montreal, H3C 3J7 Tel.: (514) 343-6111, poste 1796 Fax.: (514) 343-5834

Hello everyone, I bring to discussion the necessity/design of a new type of smart pointer. r215176 and r217791 rise the problem, D5443 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D5443> is devoted to the solution. r215176 applies several temporary ugly fixes of memory leaks in TGParser.cpp which would be great to be refactored using smart pointers. D5443 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D5443> demonstrates

There seems to be some uncertainty about the use of smart pointers (previously OwningPtr, now std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr predominantly) in the LLVM project as a whole, so here's a thread to discuss/clarify/etc the project preferences/direction with regard to smart pointer usage. For some context, see discussions in LLVM r212403 and Clang r213307. The basic question here seems to be

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: > I don't have much to add here besides +1. I think using std::unique_ptr > even for create* functions/methods is the right way to go. +1 smart pointers here are a win in terms of safety and self-documentation. I don't see why create* factories should be treated differently. Eli >

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 25 September 2014 06:16, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > I can go & dredge up some examples if we want to discuss the particular > > merits & whether each of those cases would be better solved in some other > > way, but it seemed pervasive enough in the

hi, when using the execution engine (no matter, if JIT or Interpreter) i get the following assertion as soon as i use boost::shared_ptr: /build/buildd/llvm-2.5/lib/Target/X86/X86CodeEmitter.cpp:522: void<unnamed>::Emitter::emitInstruction(const llvm::MachineInstr&, const llvm::TargetInstrDesc*): Assertion `0 && "JIT does not support inline asm!\n"' failed.

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com> wrote: > Could we consider moving the things you listed to shared pointer semantics > ? It will be a simple and clear model; unless someone justifies that it > will be a performance concern to use shared pointers there I don’t think we > need a new and more complex to reason about smart pointer. >

On 18 Nov 2020, at 7:39, Florian Hahn wrote: >> On Nov 18, 2020, at 12:08, Ola Fosheim Grøstad via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> My experience with LLVM is limited, but I am trying to figure out how >> to add optimizations for automatic reference counting. The GC >> documentation mentions that patch-points could be useful, but it

Has anyone seen this come up, I am using 0.24.8 version of puppet. I followed the directions on the wiki and installed passenger correctly from what I can tell. [Wed Mar 17 09:07:56 2010] [notice] Apache/2.2.14 (Unix) DAV/2 Phusion_Passenger/2.2.5 mod_python/3.3.1 Python/2.5.2 mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.8g mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.0 configured -- resuming normal operations

Agreed, the existing ownership seems sub-optimal. I wouldn't say broken, but subtle at least - looks like you get the choice to either manage the ownership of the Module object yourself, or let the context handle it (eg: currently it'd be valid to just do "{ LLVMContext C; new Module(C); new Module(C); }" - Modules end up owned by the context and cleaned up there). Might be hard