llvmbot wrote:
<!--LLVM PR SUMMARY COMMENT--> @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Timm Baeder (tbaederr) <details> <summary>Changes</summary> --- Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/151700.diff 1 Files Affected: - (modified) clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/DynamicAllocator.cpp (+19) ``````````diff diff --git a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/DynamicAllocator.cpp b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/DynamicAllocator.cpp index 169250ce05fa7..9b8b664df6afd 100644 --- a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/DynamicAllocator.cpp +++ b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/DynamicAllocator.cpp @@ -13,6 +13,25 @@ using namespace clang; using namespace clang::interp; +// FIXME: There is a peculiar problem with the way we track pointers +// to blocks and the way we allocate dynamic memory. +// +// When we have code like this: +// while (true) { +// char *buffer = new char[1024]; +// delete[] buffer; +// } +// +// We have a local variable 'buffer' pointing to the heap allocated memory. +// When deallocating the memory via delete[], that local variable still +// points to the memory, which means we will create a DeadBlock for it and move +// it over to that block, essentially duplicating the allocation. Moving +// the data is also slow. +// +// However, when we actually try to access the allocation after it has been +// freed, we need the block to still exist (alive or dead) so we can tell +// that it's a dynamic allocation. + DynamicAllocator::~DynamicAllocator() { cleanup(); } void DynamicAllocator::cleanup() { `````````` </details> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/151700 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
