> On Jan 30, 2023, at 10:47 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov <a...@webkit.org> wrote: > > Reviving this old thread, reading it again made me wish for two things: > > - a wiki document that describes what we are trying to do, not just a thread > which patches the proposal with clarifications;
Yeah, let me go make one. > - a discussion of why we can postpone figuring out what to do with containers > (like Vector<Node*> or HashMap<RenderBox*, RenderFragmentContainer*>). This was probably an oversight on my part. The intention is to make member variables / local variables of container type should also be using smart pointers in its type: e.g. Vector<RefPtr<Node>> instead of Vector<Node*>. WeakHashMap<RenderBox, WeakPtr<RenderFragmentContainer>> instead of HashMap<RenderBox*, RenderFragmentContainer*>. I’ll try to clarify this in the new doc I make. - R. Niwa >> 23 сент. 2020 г., в 1:54 PM, Jan Korous <jkor...@apple.com> написал(а): >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am an engineer at Security Tools team at Apple responsible for the tooling >> support for this effort. >> >>> On Sep 23, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sep 23, 2020, at 12:18 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> There are quite a few cases where data members are references but then >>>> those can also be replaced by a simple member function which retrieves the >>>> value of the smart pointer member variable and returns a reference. >>> >>> I think this should be an explicit recommendation in the project of >>> refactoring to follow these rules. >>> >>>> For now, a trivial function is defined as a member function defined in the >>>> class declaration whose definition simply returns a member variable (the >>>> result of get() or a copy if the member variable is a smart pointer). >>> >>> That seems like a rule that’s too narrow. I would not want a function to >>> become non-trivial just because I moved it from being inline within the >>> class definition to an inline below the class definition in the same header. >>> >>> This rule worries me a lot right now; it seems like it could result in an >>> explosion of local variable copies of arguments. >>> >>>> We probably also need to figure out a way to exempt all lambda functions >>>> that never get stored anywhere. We have a bunch of helper functions like >>>> WTF::map which just calls lambdas on each item while iterating over an >>>> array, etc... and there is no need to create a separate Ref / RefPtr in >>>> those cases since lambdas are never stored and re-used later. >>> >>> Does seem important. I am pretty sure I have seen this concept in other >>> languages. We often try to use const Function& for one type of lambda >>> argument and Function&& for the other type, but that’s far from complete. >> >> Re: lambda captures - I think we have two ideas here. >> >> 1. Allow WeakPtr captures. >> This makes sense to do but it implies we have to add the notion of ownership >> to the rules. The thing is that WeakPtr is safe on its own (and technically >> reference-counted) but it can’t be used as a safety measure in the way of >> RefPtr or Ref since it doesn’t own the memory (not even in a shared manner). >> >> 2. Allow raw pointer/reference captures. >> This makes sense given you use generic algorithms in the codebase. I will >> implement a new version of the checker - currently it is still based on >> simple AST analysis and for this kind of reasoning we’ll need to use >> symbolic execution in Clang Static Analyzer. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jan >> >>> — Darin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
