xazax.hun added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13099#260531, @seaneveson wrote:
> There is an issue where pointers to the object (this) should cause it to be
> invalidated, but don't since TK_PreserveContents has been set.
>
> For example:
>
> class B;
> class A {
> B b;
> const foo();
> };
> class B {
> A *ptr_a;
> }
>
> A a;
> a.b.ptr_a = &a;
> a.foo();
>
>
> The method foo might modify 'this' via the object b, but 'this' will not be
> invalidated as foo is const.
>
> Again I'm not sure this is worth checking for, based on the assumption that a
> reasonable const method won't modify the relevant object. What do people
> think?
I think, this can happen every time, when tehere is a cycle of pointers. Even
if you do not deal with this case I think it would be great to have an XFAIL
test with a fixme that describes this limitation.
In case we would like to fix this issue in the future, I think
TK_PreserveContents is too weak. It would be great to have more control, when
to preserve the content. E.g. a trait which describes that, this region can not
be invalidated by that pointer. It is a good question whether a more precise
solution can be efficient enough though.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13099
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
