wuhao5 added a comment. In D58514#1435296 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58514#1435296>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D58514#1435228 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58514#1435228>, @wuhao5 wrote: > > > > Okay, so really just a block self-reference. We could really just add a > > > feature for that that would avoid both the complexity and the expense of > > > the self-capture dance. > > > > Is there a plan to cover this case? or is it a legitimate use case that > > Clang should handle? > > > You are currently relying on something that ARC doesn't guarantee, so the > client code should be fixed to explicitly copy the block. I think we would > be happy to consider a proposal in the long run to allow blocks to > self-reference more easily, which will effectively bypass the problem. I am not sure if I follow here - is it not that the weak pointer holds a block that's in the stack but is supposed to be in the heap? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58514/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58514 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
