[LLVMdev] New type of smart pointer for LLVM

[David Blaikie]

Ping - we've hit another of these (propagating Diagnostic::OwnsDiagClient
into other places) in

http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=221884

Any ideas how we should be tackling this overall? I'm not entirely
convinced these are fixable by design and I think we might honestly want a
conditional-ownership smart pointer...

But I'm happy to hold off on that a while longer if we're going to make a
concerted effort to avoid propagating these half-baked solutions and
actually try to remove them when we come up against problems with/around
them.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:01 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> & repeating for the benefit of cfe-dev, here's the list of known cases of
> conditional ownership (I'm sure there are others that don't fit the exact
> naming convention I grep'd for):
>
> In Clang, simply grepping for "Owns" comes up with the following boolean
> members:
>
> CodeGenAction::OwnsVMContext
> ASTReader::OwnsDeserializationListener
> Diagnostic::OwnsDiagClient
> Preprocessor::OwnsHeaderSearch
> TokenLexer::OwnsTokens
> Action::OwnsInputs (this ones trickier - it's a boolean that indicates
> whether all the elements of a vector<T*> are owned or unowned)
> ASTUnit::OwnsRemappedFileBuffers
> VerifyDiagnosticConsumer::OwnsPrimaryClient
> TextDiagnosticPrinter::OwnsOutputStream
> FixItRewriter::OwnsClient
> Tooling::OwnsAction
>
> Some in LLVM:
>
> circular_raw_ostream::OwnsStream
> Arg::OwnsValues (another tricky one with a bool flag and a vector of raw
> pointers, if I recall correctly)
>
>
> And a couple that I changed {T*, bool} to {T*, unique_ptr<T>}:
>
> LogDiagnosticPrinter::StreamOwner
> ASTUnit::ComputedPreamble::Owner
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [+cfe-dev]
>>
>> This conversation has already been happening on llvm-dev so there's no
>> good way for me to capture the entire existing discussion (so I'm jumping
>> you in part-way) & the subject line could be more descriptive, but I wanted
>> to add Clang developers since many of the interesting cases of conditional
>> ownership I've seen were in Clang.
>>
>> I know some of you are also on llvm-dev but not active readers, so it
>> might be worth using this as a jumping off point to go & find the full
>> llvm-dev thread, read that and, when replying, add cfe-dev.
>>
>> If anyone not on llvm-dev wants some more context there's the email
>> archive here (
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-September/thread.html#77136
>> ) and/or I'm happy to provide more context/summary myself.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Anton Yartsev <anton.yartsev at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Thanks for the feedback!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:36 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Anton Yartsev <anton.yartsev at gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Ping!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suggested is a wrapper over a raw pointer that is intended for
>>>>>> freeing wrapped memory at the end of wrappers lifetime if ownership of a
>>>>>> raw pointer was not taken away during the lifetime of the wrapper.
>>>>>> The main difference from unique_ptr is an ability to access the
>>>>>> wrapped pointer after the ownership is transferred.
>>>>>> To make the ownership clearer the wrapper is designed for local-scope
>>>>>> usage only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  I'm still concerned this isn't the right direction, and that we
>>>>> instead want a more formal "maybe owning pointer". The specific use case
>>>>> you've designed for here, in my experience, doesn't seem to come up often
>>>>> enough to justify a custom ADT - but the more general tool of
>>>>> sometimes-owning smart pointer seems common enough (& problematic enough)
>>>>> to warrant a generic data structure (and such a structure would also be
>>>>> appliable to the TGParser use case where this came up).
>>>>>
>>>>   David, could you, please, clarify the concept of the "maybe owning
>>>> pointer"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> See my reply to Chandler with a list of classes that hold {T*, bool}
>>> members where the bool indicates whether the T* needs to be deleted or not.
>>> My original goal here was to provide an API to make those more robust (more
>>> precisely: to remove the need to call "release()" and allow us to stay in a
>>> clear(er) owning domain).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'd love to hear some more opinions, but maybe we're not going to get
>>>>> them...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I strongly agree that the example here isn't compelling.
>>>>
>>>>  I think it is a very fundamental design problem when there is a need
>>>> for a pointer value after it has been deallocated...
>>>>
>>>> Not deallocated but stored to the long-living storage. I agree, the
>>>> problem is in design, the suggested wrapper is an intermediate solution, it
>>>> was just designed to replace the existing ugly fixes.
>>>>
>>>>  I even question whether we need a "maybe owning" smart pointer, or
>>>> whether this is just an indication that the underlying data structure is
>>>> *wrong*. The idea of "maybe" and "owning" going to gether, in any sense,
>>>> seems flat out broken to me from a design perspective, and so I'm not
>>>> enthused about providing abstractions that make it easier to build systems
>>>> with unclear ownership semantics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anton
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141113/d6f77c6e/attachment.html>