It's safer to pass a type so that it can be checked if delete should be
used instead. Also changes a few void pointer casts to const_cast so that
if the data becomes typed it's an error.
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/137404
The main issue of 'type-less' standard C allocations is that there is no check on
allocated type possible.
This is a serious source of annoyance (and crashes) when making some
low-level structs non-trivial, as tracking down all usages of these
structs in higher-level other structs and their allocation is... really
painful.
MEM_[cm]allocN<T> templates on the other hand do check that the
given type is trivial, at build time (static assert), which makes such issue...
trivial to catch.
NOTE: New code should strive to use MEM_new (i.e. allocation and
construction) as much as possible, even for trivial PoD types.
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/136268
The general idea is to keep the 'old', C-style MEM_callocN signature, and slowly
replace most of its usages with the new, C++-style type-safer template version.
* `MEM_cnew<T>` allocation version is renamed to `MEM_callocN<T>`.
* `MEM_cnew_array<T>` allocation version is renamed to `MEM_calloc_arrayN<T>`.
* `MEM_cnew<T>` duplicate version is renamed to `MEM_dupallocN<T>`.
Similar templates type-safe version of `MEM_mallocN` will be added soon
as well.
Following discussions in !134452.
NOTE: For now static type checking in `MEM_callocN` and related are slightly
different for Windows MSVC. This compiler seems to consider structs using the
`DNA_DEFINE_CXX_METHODS` macro as non-trivial (likely because their default
copy constructors are deleted). So using checks on trivially
constructible/destructible instead on this compiler/system.
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/134771
The depsgraph CoW mechanism is a bit of a misnomer. It creates an
evaluated copy for data-blocks regardless of whether the copy will
actually be written to. The point is to have physical separation between
original and evaluated data. This is in contrast to the commonly used
performance improvement of keeping a user count and copying data
implicitly when it needs to be changed. In Blender code we call this
"implicit sharing" instead. Importantly, the dependency graph has no
idea about the _actual_ CoW behavior in Blender.
Renaming this functionality in the despgraph removes some of the
confusion that comes up when talking about this, and will hopefully
make the depsgraph less confusing to understand initially too. Wording
like "the evaluated copy" (as opposed to the original data-block) has
also become common anyway.
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/118338
