dexonsmith added a comment. In D89749#2354386 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89749#2354386>, @dexonsmith wrote:
> That means it's not safe to store an address from `getSLocEntry` when there > will be another call. I can update `ASTImporter` to use a copy, but I think > this is too much of a gotcha... I'll think more about what to do, but here > are the ideas I have: > > 1. Return an `SLocEntry` by-value. After https://reviews.llvm.org/D89580 > that's just 24B (down from 40B), so maybe this is reasonable. > 2. Return an `SLocEntryRef` by-value, a new type that is (say) a pointer to > the correct `SLocEntryTable` and an index into it. This would be 16B. > > Let me know if you have thoughts. 3. Use indirection (like https://github.com/Teemperor/llvm/commit/a06b21cbc55c6d2f1d2bf6f39771411ccc17342b, but doesn't have to be lazy) to allocate `SLocEntry`s in non-contiguous chunks, with stable addresses. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89749/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89749 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
