Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
concurrency: fix placement new over the live value_ member #444
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
concurrency: fix placement new over the live value_ member #444
Changes from 1 commit
961c13bb5adea5File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Jump to
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is a fair correction and I have taken it. Placement
newdoes end the previous object's lifetime, by reusing its storage ([basic.life]/1.5) — what it does not do is run that object's destructor, and [basic.life]/4 makes the omission undefined only for a program that depends on the destructor's side effects, not unconditionally. The old comment got both halves wrong.Reworded at all six sites in d53f1d3, and the pull request description corrected in the same places:
The generated code is unchanged; only the rationale moved. The fix itself still stands for the reason the description already gave — at these six call sites
value_is live,score::result::Errorhappens to be trivially destructible today so nothing leaks yet, and thestd::destroy_atis what keeps that from becoming a real leak if it ever stops being true.AI disclosure: AI-assisted (Claude Code). I checked the cited standard wording before accepting the correction and take responsibility for it.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.