| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Our copy constructor doesn't explicitly invoke the base class's
constructor, and GCC is (rightly) concerned.
llvm-svn: 291023
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This class is unnecessary.
Its comment indicated that it was a compile error to allocate an
instance of a class that inherits from RefCountedBaseVPTR on the stack.
This may have been true at one point, but it's not today.
Moreover you really do not want to allocate *any* refcounted object on
the stack, vptrs or not, so if we did have a way to prevent these
objects from being stack-allocated, we'd want to apply it to regular
RefCountedBase too, obviating the need for a separate RefCountedBaseVPTR
class.
It seems that the main way RefCountedBaseVPTR provides safety is by
making its subclass's destructor virtual. This may have been helpful at
one point, but these days clang will emit an error if you define a class
with virtual functions that inherits from RefCountedBase but doesn't
have a virtual destructor.
Reviewers: compnerd, dblaikie
Subscribers: cfe-commits, klimek, llvm-commits, mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28162
llvm-svn: 290717
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
weak vtables.
This patch places class definitions in implementation files into anonymous
namespaces to prevent weak vtables. This eliminates the need of providing an
out-of-line definition to pin the vtable explicitly to the file.
llvm-svn: 195092
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch removes most of the trivial cases of weak vtables by pinning them to
a single object file. The memory leaks in this version have been fixed. Thanks
Alexey for pointing them out.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2068
Reviewed by Andy
llvm-svn: 195064
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This change is incorrect. If you delete virtual destructor of both a base class
and a subclass, then the following code:
Base *foo = new Child();
delete foo;
will not cause the destructor for members of Child class. As a result, I observe
plently of memory leaks. Notable examples I investigated are:
ObjectBuffer and ObjectBufferStream, AttributeImpl and StringSAttributeImpl.
llvm-svn: 194997
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch removes most of the trivial cases of weak vtables by pinning them to
a single object file.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2068
Reviewed by Andy
llvm-svn: 194865
|
|
|
now that this handles the release / retain calls.
Adds a regression test for that bug (which is a compile-time
regression) and for the last two changes to the IntrusiveRefCntPtr,
especially tests for the memory leak due to copy construction of the
ref-counted object and ensuring that the traits are used for release /
retain calls.
llvm-svn: 149411
|
