size_t for all alloc functions - #1388
Merged
Merged
Conversation
tobil4sk
reviewed
Sep 4, 2026
| bool do_lock{ true }; | ||
| #else | ||
| bool do_lock = false; | ||
| bool do_lock{}; |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think an explicit false here makes more sense if this value will have an effect
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Like my previous PR, but for the alloc functions. All these functions now compile with those clang pragma and
size_tis used in place ofint.One thing I did notice here is that very, very, big allocs will not have a correct size in the object header. 32bits are used in the GC header for a large objects size, so if you allocate an object created than
std::numeric_limits<unsigned int>::max()it will get an invalid size (line 3300). I don't know if anyone has tried to allocate an object this large, but maybe we should add a check and raise a hxcpp critical error in these cases.