The compensating onLastStrongRef call could be made even when there
was no onIncStrongAttempted call to compensate for. This
happened in the OBJECT_LIFETIME_STRONG case when e.g. curCount
was initially zero, but was concurrently incremented by another
thread.
I believe the old code was also incorrect in the
curCount = INITIAL_STRONG_VALUE + 1 case,
which seems to be possible under unlikely conditions.
In that case, I believe the compensating call IS needed.
Thus the condition was also changed.
Clean cherrypick of 7f27cbc3f4 from AOSP.
Bug: 30503444
Change-Id: I44bcbcbb1264e4b52b6d3750dc39b041c4140381
Convert to use std::atomic directly.
Consistently use relaxed ordering for increments, release ordering
for decrements, and an added acquire fence when the count goes to
zero.
Fix what looks like another race in attemptIncStrong:
It seems entirely possible that the final adjustment for
INITIAL_STRONG_VALUE would see e.g. INITIAL_STRONG_VALUE + 1,
since we could be running in the middle of another initial
increment.
Attempt to somewhat document what this actually does, and
what's expected from the client. Hide the documentation in
the .cpp file for now.
Remove a confusing redundant test in decWeak. OBJECT_LIFETIME_STRONG
and OBJECT_LIFETIME_WEAK are the only options, in spite of some
of the original comments.
It's conceivable that either of these issues has resulted in
actual crashes, though I would guess the probability is small.
It's hard enough to reason about this code without the bugs.
Bug: 28705989
Change-Id: I4107a56c3fc0fdb7ee17fc8a8f0dd7fb128af9d8
(cherry picked from commit e263e6c633)
- Deal with some -Wunused issues
- Override PRI macros (windows)
- Revert use of PRI macros on off64_t (linux)
- Deal with a gnu++11 complaince issue
Change-Id: Ie66751293bd84477a5a6dfd8a57e700a16e36964
This was broken about 5 months ago in change I78435ed49aa196a0efb45bf9b2d58b62c41737d3.
See: https://goto.google.com/jhtss
Change-Id: Icc32993552efed3015bc1b79a7bd872d7510e020
Hans Boehm