> On Aug 26, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > How would you enforce that, other than to ask people to try to remember not > to do it? It seems to me like std::atomic not being copy-constructible is > telling you that, well, you shouldn't be copying it.
It just won't compile on platforms that have this issue. We are not taking the Address copy constructor out just so we can enforce not passing this object by value, that is not a viable solution. The copy constructor of address currently works around this issue, but the solution is not to take out the copy constructor of Address. > BTW, nobody has commented on my original concern that the atomic may not even > be necessary in the first place. Track down the original author and see what the commit message said. I can see how this could cause problems, but maybe if we don't allow Address to be passed by value the problem goes away. I am not sure. Just taking it out because it doesn't compile in your platform is not the way forward without doing due diligence. So just change the places where this gets passed by value and be done with it, or take the time to make sure you don't introduce a threading issue and decide to take out the std::atomic. Greg Clayton _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
