================
@@ -227,7 +265,7 @@ class ThreadPool {
class ThreadPoolTaskGroup {
----------------
joker-eph wrote:
> Uniqueness is "guaranteed" through memory addressing. Someone can break
> uniqueness when going through the public ThreadPool API.
How so?
> Type safety; sure you don't have implicit conversions going on.
There is much more than: the API is constrained to say: "it operates on an
instance of a TaskGroup object".
This is a very important API: it is explicit in terms of the scope on which it
operates, and the fact that it care about the **actual instance** of the
TaskGroup object.
> So what I think is that instead of passing *this you can convert the address
> to a string/int and pass this instead; hence you don't lose any guarantees. I
> understand your arguments but I find this a bit more decoupled.
As I said above, I would have strong concerns with this: it is a weak API (it
is open to any integer and does not carry the semantics I described above) and
"unsafe", just like using `void*`.
There is not way for a user to know what integer to pass here for example. As a
user such API is highly confusing and really I'm not sure what the pattern
would be other than always casting the address of the task group to an int.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82094
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
