LLPointer cleanup and modernizations from archive #5204
Merged
+124
−223
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
That is, both `LLPointer::operator==()` and `operator!=()` and the free function `operator==()` and `operator!=()` now accept pointer types other than the type of the subject `LLPointer`, letting the compiler apply implicit pointer conversions or diagnose an error.
Instead of restating the whole class, requiring changes to be made in parallel (which has already failed), just make a template alias.
This affords strong exception safety. Also, eliminating the conditional may improve speed.
Given templated constructors and assignment operators, it's tempting to remove specific constructors and assignment operators with the same LLPointer<Type> parameters. That turns out to be a mistake. Add comments to warn future maintainers.
This allows removing #include "llerror.h" from llpointer.h. Also remove #include "llmutex.h" as a heavy way to get <boost/functional/hash.hpp>. That requires adding #include "llmutex.h" to llimage.h, llnotifications.h, llwatchdog.cpp and llvolumemgr.cpp, which were inheriting it from llpointer.h.
akleshchev
reviewed
Jan 5, 2026
indra/llcommon/llpointer.h
Outdated
|
|
||
| #include "llerror.h" // *TODO: consider eliminating this | ||
| #include "llmutex.h" | ||
| #include <boost/functional/hash.hpp> |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any idea why we aren't using std::hash here?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a std::hash and a boost::hash specialization down at the bottom of the file so that we have compatibility with both.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I saw the 'struct hash' thing, but why do we need the boost variant and are not just cutting that part of the lib out?.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems safe to remove it as we don't appear to be using any boost hash containers with LLPointer.
akleshchev
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2026
…d::hash specialization to use std::hash internally Signed-off-by: Rye <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
3 participants
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.
Description
This extracts and rebases a series of changes from
archive/developthat provides some nice cleanup and modernizations to LLPointer.Related Issues
Issue Link: #5078
Checklist
Please ensure the following before requesting review:
Additional Notes