BitstreamCursors are heavy-weight objects that should not be passed by value.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
clang/lib/Serialization/GlobalModuleIndex.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
130 | You're not passing this as a const, so the calling function's Cursor will be updated - this doesn't sound generally safe to me - what about a move? |
clang/lib/Serialization/GlobalModuleIndex.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
130 |
IIUC, GlobalModuleIndex::GlobalModuleIndex is a private function that has only been called by GlobalModuleIndex::readIndex, and the Cursor object has only one consumer (GlobalModuleIndex::readIndex), so I guess there should not be any unsafe concern. |
Perhaps GlobalModuleIndex should create the cursor itself - it's being handed the buffer anyway?
use std::move().
I'm not sure this will be better but hope it will make others happy :)
Sorry about missing this! :(
However, I'm not sure that I understand your idea. Do you mean we can simply pass the buffer to the GlobalModuleIndex then we can construct the cursor in the constructor itself? IMHO, we can't. that's because we need to use the cursor to sniff for the signature of the buffer, and we will return an error if it is failed. Please let me know if I understand you wrong :)
/// The main bitstream cursor for the main block. llvm::BitstreamCursor Cursor(*Buffer); // Sniff for the signature. for (unsigned char C : {'B', 'C', 'G', 'I'}) { if (Expected<llvm::SimpleBitstreamCursor::word_t> Res = Cursor.Read(8)) { if (Res.get() != C) return std::make_pair( nullptr, llvm::createStringError(std::errc::illegal_byte_sequence, "expected signature BCGI")); } else return std::make_pair(nullptr, Res.takeError()); } return std::make_pair(new GlobalModuleIndex(std::move(Buffer), std::move(Cursor)), llvm::Error::success()); }
That's what I meant, yeah - since the buffer is actually already being passed.
IMHO, we can't. that's because we need to use the cursor to sniff for the signature of the buffer, and we will return an error if it is failed. Please let me know if I understand you wrong :)
Ah, right ,I missed that usage before the call. Makes sense then - thanks for helping me understand!
You're not passing this as a const, so the calling function's Cursor will be updated - this doesn't sound generally safe to me - what about a move?