I think so. But in this case lldb::Address explicitly supplied a copy constructor that looked like this:
Address (const Address& rhs) : m_section_wp (rhs.m_section_wp), m_offset(rhs.m_offset.load()) // this is the std::atomic<> { } circumventing the problem. On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:11 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.am...@apple.com> wrote: > On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > It seems to be. I will also make the copy constructor =delete() to make > sure this cannot happen again. > > > Just curious: if a member has a deleted copy-ctor (like std::atomic > right?), isn’t the copy constructor automatically deleted? > > — > Mehdi > > > > I'm still concerned that the std::atomic is unnecessary, but at that point > at least it just becomes a performance problem and not a bug. > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:00 PM Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote: > >> So after speaking with local experts on the subject, we do indeed have a >> problem. Please convert all placed where we pass lldb_private::Address by >> value to pass by "const Address &". Anyone that is modifying the address >> should make a local copy and work with that. >> >> Is Address the only class that is causing problems? >> >> Greg >> >> > On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < >> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> > I recently updated to Visual Studio 2015 Update 3, which has improved >> its diagnostics. As a result of this, LLDB is uncompilable due to a slew >> of errors of the following nature: >> > >> > D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\include\lldb/Target/Process.h(3256): error >> C2719: 'default_stop_addr': formal parameter with requested alignment of 8 >> won't be aligned >> > >> > The issue comes down to the fact that lldb::Address contains a >> std::atomic<uint64_t>, and is being passed by value pervasively throughout >> the codebase. There is no way to guarantee that this value is 8 byte >> aligned. This has always been a bug, but until now the compiler just >> hasn't been reporting it. >> > >> > Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is a problem on any >> 32-bit platform, and MSVC is just the only one erroring. >> > >> > I'm not really sure what to do about this. Passing >> std::atomic<uint64>'s by value seems wrong to me. >> > >> > Looking at the code, I don't even know why it needs to be atomic. It's >> not even being used safely. We'll have a single function write the value >> and later read the value, even though it could have been used in the >> meantime. Maybe what is really intended is a mutex. Or maybe it doesn't >> need to be atomic in the first place. >> > >> > Does anyone have a suggestion on what to do about this? I'm currently >> blocked on this as I can't compile LLDB. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > lldb-dev mailing list >> > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev