mib added a comment.
In D117139#3240436 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117139#3240436>, @labath wrote:
> I'd like to remind everyone of a not-very-widely-known, but incredibly nifty
> feature of std::shared_ptr, called "aliasing". It allows one to create a
> shared_ptr which points to one object, but deletes a completely different
> object when it goes out of scope. It works like so:
>
> std::shared_ptr<A> a = std::make_shared<A>(...); // or whatever
> std::shared_ptr<B> b(a, getB(a)); // will point to a B, but call `delete A`
> when it goes out of scope
>
> The model use case is when the first object is a subobject (field) of the
> second one (so we'd have `struct A { B b; ... };` and `getB(a)` would be
> `&a->b`), but that is not a a requirement. B can be a completely arbitrary
> object -- the only requirement is that B remains live for as long as A is
> around.
Very neat indeed, but I don't think it will be of any use here unfortunately:
IIUC in your example, `b` is the first to go out-of-scope which calls `a`
destructor. In my case, `a` when out of scope but it still referenced by `b`.
> Now, I don't understand this code well enough to say whether that
> could/should be used here, but the (few) parts which I did understand led me
> to think that there are some subobjects (in the broadest sense of the word)
> being passed around, and so I have a feeling we should at least consider this
> option -- it seems like it would be better to pass around objects with
> explicit ownership semantics instead of raw pointers.
I agree with you on theory but here, the `ScriptedThreadInterface` tries to be
language-agnostic that's why I pass `StructuredData::GenericSP` around.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117139/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117139
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
