rjmccall added a comment.
That is an extremely Google-specific analysis, actually; AFAIK almost nobody
else uses static linking all the way down to and including the C and C++
standard libraries unless they're literally building an executable for a
fully-static environment, like the kernel. Th
ahh added a comment.
> If the pointer is not null, the runtime overhead of the null check is pretty
> negligible next to the cost of actually doing the allocation. If the pointer
> is null, the runtime overhead of making at least one unnecessary call —
> probably two, if 'operator delete' doesn
rjmccall added a comment.
Discourse nitpick: I would encourage you to just use the ordinary phrase "null
pointer", or just "null", when referring to a pointer value that happens to be
null and to reserve "nullptr" for *statically* null pointers, especially the
`nullptr` expression.
If the poin
ahh updated this revision to Diff 134846.
ahh added a comment.
Fix indentation
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43430
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGCXXABI.h
lib/CodeGen/CGExprCXX.cpp
test/CodeGenCXX/cxx2a-destroying-delete.cpp
test/CodeGenCXX/delete-two-arg.cpp
test/CodeGenCXX
rsmith added a comment.
LGTM, but I'd also like @rjmccall's opinion.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43430
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rsmith added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43430#1011269, @kimgr wrote:
> I wonder if this could have negative effects for frequent deletion of
> nullptrs (e.g. a sometimes-allocated member of a heavily used value type).
For that to be better, I think we'd need one of two things to h
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 1:41 AM Kim Gräsman via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> kimgr added a comment.
>
> Peanut gallery observation: there was a discussion on the Boost list years
> and years ago where someone made the case that `if (x != nullptr) delete
> x;` was measurably fas
kimgr added a comment.
Peanut gallery observation: there was a discussion on the Boost list years and
years ago where someone made the case that `if (x != nullptr) delete x;` was
measurably faster than just calling `delete x;` I can't find it now, but I
think it might have been in the context o
ahh added a comment.
On my workstation's checkout of head, one test fails (Clang ::
Driver/response-file.c) both with and without this change; everything else
appears to pass.
I believe that between the tests I add to delete.cpp and the ones that are
already there (and destroying-delete.cpp) w
ahh created this revision.
ahh added a reviewer: rsmith.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
[expr.delete] is pretty crystal clear that it's OK to invoke a
deallocation-function on a nullptr delete-expression:
"If the value of the operand of the delete-expression is a null
pointer value, it i
10 matches
Mail list logo
