[NFC][SYCL] Use plain context_impl * for func params in scheduler
#19156
Conversation
…hpp` Continuation of the refactoring in intel#18795 intel#18877 intel#18966 intel#18979 intel#18980 intel#18981 intel#19007 intel#19030 intel#19123 intel#19126
aelovikov-intel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
aelovikov-intel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
aelovikov-intel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
| @@ -214,6 +213,10 @@ struct MemObjRecord { | |||
|
|
|||
| // The context which has the latest state of the memory object. | |||
| std::shared_ptr<context_impl> MCurContext; | |||
| context_impl *getCurContext() { return MCurContext.get(); } | |||
| void setCurContext(context_impl *Ctx) { | |||
| MCurContext = Ctx ? Ctx->shared_from_this() : nullptr; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My understanding was that the shared_from_this functionality could be used by the shared_ptr ctor, so
| MCurContext = Ctx ? Ctx->shared_from_this() : nullptr; | |
| MCurContext = std::shared_ptr<context_impl>{Ctx}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That only works during creation of the very first shared_ptr that has been done in context_impl::create/std::make_shared, AFAIK. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0033r1.html might be helpful reading on that subject as well.
| @@ -214,6 +213,10 @@ struct MemObjRecord { | |||
|
|
|||
| // The context which has the latest state of the memory object. | |||
| std::shared_ptr<context_impl> MCurContext; | |||
| context_impl *getCurContext() { return MCurContext.get(); } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could there be a benefit to having a const overload?
| context_impl *getCurContext() { return MCurContext.get(); } | |
| context_impl *getCurContext() { return MCurContext.get(); } | |
| const context_impl *getCurContext() const { return MCurContext.get(); } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
const-correctness and the choices we have to make (technically, C++ will allow to return non-const from const method) are intentionally left for a future refactoring separate from this activity.
Continuation of the refactoring in
#18795
#18877
#18966
#18979
#18980
#18981
#19007
#19030
#19123
#19126