Support out of order destruction of static_vars #83
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
AjayBrahmakshatriya
merged commit 8c8aba8
into
BuildIt-lang:master
1 of 2 checks passed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This changeset relaxes the big constraint on static_vars having to be destroyed in the exact same order as they are initialized. This was previously asserted in the destructor. However this makes returning static_vars from functions difficult due to copy elision. This change relaxes this now by simply setting the size of the variable in the tracking tuple to be 0. tracking tuples of size 0 are cleaned up lazily.
This also doesn't require us to remove the element from the middle which could mess with static_tag comparisons.
Sample58 has been added to test this.
This should also help with #76