================
@@ -68,9 +68,9 @@ class PatternApplicator {
/// invalidate the match and try another pattern.
LogicalResult
matchAndRewrite(Operation *op, PatternRewriter &rewriter,
- function_ref<bool(const Pattern &)> canApply = {},
- function_ref<void(const Pattern &)> onFailure = {},
- function_ref<LogicalResult(const Pattern &)> onSuccess = {});
+ std::function<bool(const Pattern &)> canApply = {},
+ std::function<void(const Pattern &)> onFailure = {},
+ std::function<LogicalResult(const Pattern &)> onSuccess =
{});
----------------
matthias-springer wrote:
What are you referring to with `this function`?
The problem here is really just caused by the fact that the `canApply =`
assignment is inside of a nested scope. And the lambda object is dead by the
time `matcher.matchAndRewrite` is called. I.e., the `canApply` function_ref
points to an already free'd lambda. At least that's my understanding.
What's the C++ guidelines wrt. to `function` vs. `function_ref`. This is the
first time I ran into such an issue, and assigning lambdas to `function_ref`
feels "dangerous" to me now. When using `function`, I don't have to think about
the lifetime of an object.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84131
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
