On Jun 20, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote: > > 20.06.2011, в 03:22, Maciej Stachowiak написал(а): > >>> For a shared ownership model there are multiple possible definitions of >>> whether a function takes ownership to an object passed as an argument. Here >>> are some of my attempts to describe the bright line: >>> >>> a) Hands off ownership to what could possibly be the sole owner in most >>> code paths. >>> b) Keeps a reference to the object after the function completes in most >>> code paths. >>> c) Takes a reference to the object at least once in most code paths. >>> >>> d) Hands off ownership to what could possibly be the sole owner in some >>> code paths. >>> e) Keeps a reference to the object after it completes in some code paths. >>> f) Takes a reference to the object at least once in some code paths. >>> >>> Is the bright line rule you have in mind (b) or perhaps (e)? Or something >>> not listed here at all? >> >> Yes, (b) or (e). I haven't thought about whether "most code paths" or "some >> code paths" makes more sense, but I'm not sure there are a lot of cases in >> our code where it makes a difference. >> >> I don't think it makes sense to talk about a sole owner of a refcounted >> object. If there is a sole owner at any given time, it is at best temporary. >> PassRefPtr is about clearly and efficiently transferring a reference, it >> doesn't need it to necessarily be the sole then-existing reference. > > I think that to make this complete, the rules need to be transitive. A > function that passes its argument to another function taking a PassRefPtr > should itself take a PassRefPtr. That's the case in > <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52981>, for instance. > > It doesn't seem that analyzing code for "most/some code paths takes > ownership" would be any easier that analyzing it for "any caller gives away > ownership".
In general it only requires inspecting the source of the function, and possibly the signatures of function it calls. The analysis for "any caller gives away ownership" requires searching over all of WebCore to find possible call sites. And it can easily change If we think the transitivity problem is a hazard, we could make PassRefPtr refuse to implicitly convert from raw pointers. Then to pass a raw pointer to a function that uses PassRefPtr you'd have to make a RefPtr first (or adopt, if the ref is unowned). That would make "takes ownership" analysis purely local to the function source. > Yet it's the latter where PassRefPtr is beneficial. Why base the rule on > something that's disconnected from actual benefit? Because it's simpler to read the source of your own function than to visit all call sites, and it's more obvious that when you change what the function does you may need to change the signature. Regards, Macij
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
