facebook
file_system.wrapper.remove.redudant.fields
I am confused as to the advantage of this change. The existing code uses a unique ptr to store the moved unique ptr. The proposal uses a raw pointer to accomplish the same result.
Is there a reason the raw approach is better than the unique ptr one? I believe there are very few unguarded pointers left in RocksDB intentionally.
I am confused as to the advantage of this change. The existing code uses a unique ptr to store the moved unique ptr. The proposal uses a raw pointer to accomplish the same result.
Is there a reason the raw approach is better than the unique ptr one? I believe there are very few unguarded pointers left in RocksDB intentionally.
The raw ptr target_ is already defined in base class, the unique_ptr is a new data field in derived class which consume memory and is just a copy of target_ in base class.