Coding - Improve type checking in IsInstance method and add Info method to Standard_Type #20
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to several key files, primarily focusing on the Changes
Poem
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx (1)
148-148: Consider returning by value rather than const reference.Although returning a const reference to
std::type_indexis functional,std::type_indexis small and cheap to copy in typical implementations. Returning by value could simplify usage patterns without a noticeable performance penalty.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/Standard/Standard_Transient.cxx(1 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/Standard/Standard_Transient.cxx (1)
37-37: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionCheck alignment of instance checking with inheritance semantics.
The new comparison
(AType->Info() == typeid(*this))only confirms that the current object’s most-derived type matches exactlyAType. If the intention is to handle derived classes, this equality check might skip subclasses. Consider whether you need a subtype check versus strict equality here.
dpasukhi
force-pushed
the
test_compare_Instance
branch
from
b32a740 to
0526799
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (3)
21-21: Configure static analysis for macro expansions.
The static analysis tool flaggedIMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXTas an unknown macro. Consider configuring cppcheck for these macros to suppress false positives.Do you want me to help generate a cppcheck config snippet that properly includes macro definitions?
🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 21-21: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
23-31: Constructor checks.
The constructor is neat and initializes all fields. Consider validatingtheNameagainst null or empty strings if such usage is disallowed.- : myInfo(theInfo), - myName(theName), - ... + Standard_ASSERT_RETURN(theName != nullptr, "Null pointer for type name"); + : myInfo(theInfo), + myName(theName), + ...
66-71: Registry method without concurrency mechanism.
Registercreates and returns a newStandard_Typebut does not appear to lock a global registry. If multiple threads register new classes concurrently, synchronization might be needed.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/Standard/Standard_Transient.cxx(2 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx(2 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx(6 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx
[error] 21-21: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
🔇 Additional comments (15)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx (8)
112-114: Inline version vs. out-of-line version.
This definition similarly ensures a static reference to the type descriptor. The pattern remains consistent with the macro-based RTTI approach. No functional concerns arise here.
118-123: Implementation of IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT macro.
These lines properly define the static instance for RTTI. The approach is consistent with the established pattern of generating aStandard_Typefor each class.
157-157: Returning a reference to a member std::type_index.
Returning a reference here is acceptable given the data member remains valid throughout the object’s lifetime. This addition cleanly exposes the type’s low-level info.
190-190: Template usage for type descriptor retrieval.
The direct call toT::get_type_descriptor()is concise and meets the RTTI registration pattern.
205-208: Equality operators for Standard_Type.
Introducing these operators extends the utility ofStandard_Typein type comparisons and containers. The simple address comparison viamyInfois suitably lightweight.
235-246: Hash specialization for Standard_Type.
Defining a custom hash forStandard_Typeis useful for unordered containers. The reference toInfo().hash_code()is straightforward and matches the typical usage ofstd::type_index.
210-210: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionMismatch between comment and empty destructor.
The comment says the destructor "removes the type from the registry," but the code is empty. If registry cleanup is not needed, please remove or adjust the comment to reflect the actual behavior. Otherwise, implement the missing cleanup.- //! Destructor removes the type from the registry + //! Destructor intentionally left emptyLikely invalid or redundant comment.
96-102: Ensure macro expansions do not break compilation or correct scope.
These inline definitions appear correct and are consistent with the OCCT RTTI mechanism. However, consider verifying that the macro expansions (especiallyOCCT_CHECK_BASE_CLASS) do not introduce subtle scoping or ordering issues.Use the following script to scan for any expansions that might generate unintended code:
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the usage of
DEFINE_STANDARD_RTTI_INLINEmacro in the codebase to verify if there are any scoping or ordering issues.
Based on the analysis of the codebase, I can now provide a definitive response about the macro expansions and their safety:
The macro expansions are safe and properly enforce type system constraints
The
OCCT_CHECK_BASE_CLASSmacro is well-designed with multiple safety checks:
- It performs compile-time verification that the base class is actually a direct base of the derived class (in GCC 4.7+)
- It includes static assertions to verify inheritance relationships
- It validates that the RTTI definition is placed in the correct class scope
- The macro expansion occurs at compile-time and doesn't introduce any runtime overhead
The implementation in
Standard_Type.hxxshows that the macro is used consistently across the codebase, with proper scoping and type safety checks. The static assertions ensure that any misuse of the RTTI macros will be caught at compile-time rather than causing runtime issues.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Searching for references to DEFINE_STANDARD_RTTI_INLINE expansions rg -A 4 --context-separator="===" $'DEFINE_STANDARD_RTTI_INLINE'Length of output: 43971
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the definition of OCCT_CHECK_BASE_CLASS macro rg -A 4 "OCCT_CHECK_BASE_CLASS" src/Standard/Length of output: 3297
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (5)
2-2: Updated copyright year.
No functional issues.
16-17: Include ordering changed.
BringingStandard_Mutex.hxxbeforeStandard_Type.hxxshould not cause functional differences.
47-58: Subtype-by-name check.
Similar iteration-based logic is correctly replicated here, ensuring a consistent approach.
61-63: Hex-based pointer print.
Printing the memory address provides a helpful debugging trace. No issues found.
33-44: Iterative subtype check.
Shifting from recursion to a while loop is straightforward and avoids deep call stacks. Consider verifying iftheOthermay be null to prevent dereferencing an empty handle.src/Standard/Standard_Transient.cxx (2)
23-24: Static type registration in get_type_descriptor.
Registering the descriptor explicitly ensures the type is recognized. This is consistent with the improved RTTI pattern.
38-38: Use of operator== for type comparison.
Relying on*DynamicType() == *ATypeis a cleaner approach than comparing raw handles, and it leverages the introduced equality operators inStandard_Type.
dpasukhi
force-pushed
the
test_compare_Instance
branch
from
0526799 to
83b40a0
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (2)
33-58: Consider extracting common type traversal logicBoth
SubTypemethods share similar traversal logic. Consider extracting this into a private helper method to improve maintainability and reduce code duplication.Here's a suggested refactor:
private: template<typename T> Standard_Boolean SubTypeImpl(const T& theOther, const auto& theComparator) const { const Standard_Type* aTypeIter = this; while (aTypeIter != nullptr) { if (theComparator(theOther, aTypeIter)) { return true; } aTypeIter = aTypeIter->Parent().get(); } return false; } public: Standard_Boolean SubType(const Handle(Standard_Type)& theOther) const { return SubTypeImpl(theOther, [](const auto& other, const auto* type) { return *other == *type; }); } Standard_Boolean SubType(const Standard_CString theName) const { return SubTypeImpl(theName, [](const auto& name, const auto* type) { return IsEqual(name, type->Name()); }); }
61-64: Consider using type-safe pointer castingReplace C-style cast with
std::uintptr_tfor safer pointer-to-integer conversion:- AStream << std::hex << (Standard_Address)this << " : " << std::dec << myName; + AStream << std::hex << reinterpret_cast<std::uintptr_t>(this) << " : " << std::dec << myName;
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
src/Standard/Standard_Transient.cxx(2 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx(2 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx(6 hunks)src/StepVisual/StepVisual_CoordinatesList.cxx(1 hunks)src/StepVisual/StepVisual_TessellatedGeometricSet.cxx(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- src/Standard/Standard_Transient.cxx
- src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
src/StepVisual/StepVisual_CoordinatesList.cxx
[error] 17-17: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
src/StepVisual/StepVisual_TessellatedGeometricSet.cxx
[error] 18-18: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx
[error] 21-21: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (4)
Line range hint
2-17: LGTM: Copyright update and include reorderingThe copyright year extension and include reordering look good. Moving
Standard_Mutex.hxxbeforeStandard_Type.hxxsuggests proper header dependency management.🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 21-21: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
21-21: LGTM: Standard RTTI implementationThe RTTI implementation follows OCCT's standard pattern using
IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT. The static analysis warning about unknown macro can be safely ignored as this is a known OCCT macro.🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 21-21: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
23-31: LGTM: Well-structured constructor implementationThe constructor implementation is clean and follows good C++ practices:
- Uses member initializer list
- Initialization order matches declaration order
- Parameters are well-typed and const-correct
66-71: Verify memory management at call sitesThe
Registermethod returns a raw pointer, transferring ownership to the caller. Ensure all call sites properly manage this memory, preferably wrapping it in aHandleimmediately after creation.✅ Verification successful
Memory management is properly handled at all call sites
The verification shows that
Standard_Type::Registeris exclusively used in a safe pattern where the returned pointer is immediately wrapped in aHandle(Standard_Type)and stored in a static constant (THE_TYPE_INSTANCE). This is evident in:
Standard_Transient.cxx: UsesHandle(Standard_Type)to store the resultStandard_Type.hxx: Contains macro definitions that follow the same pattern, wrapping the result inHandle(Standard_Type)Let's verify there are no other usages:
Memory management is properly handled at all call sites
The verification confirms that
Standard_Type::Registeris used safely throughout the codebase. All occurrences show the returned pointer being immediately wrapped in aHandle(Standard_Type)and stored in a static constantTHE_TYPE_INSTANCE. This pattern is consistently applied in:
- The concrete implementation in
Standard_Transient.cxx- Two macro definitions in
Standard_Type.hxxthat enforce the same safe usage pattern- No other usages found that could potentially mismanage the memory
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Register method calls to verify proper memory management rg -A 3 "Standard_Type::Register"Length of output: 1610
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any other potential usages of Register rg "Standard_Type::Register" --type cpp --type hpp --type cxx --type hxxLength of output: 100
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any other potential usages of Register without file type filtering rg "Standard_Type::Register"Length of output: 635
src/StepVisual/StepVisual_CoordinatesList.cxx (1)
17-17: Inheritance hierarchy looks consistent; configure macro for static analysis tools if needed.
The new base classStepVisual_TessellatedItemaligns well with the intended refactoring. However, static analysis tools may falsely flag theIMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXTmacro as unknown unless properly configured. Consider adding a configuration to suppress or properly recognize this macro in your tooling.Below is a script to confirm there are no lingering references to
StepGeom_TessellatedItemin related files:✅ Verification successful
Inheritance hierarchy is correct and no lingering references found
The verification confirms that:
StepVisual_CoordinatesListcorrectly inherits fromStepVisual_TessellatedItem- There are no references to
StepGeom_TessellatedItemanywhere in the codebase- The RTTI macro implementation is consistent with the inheritance hierarchy
The review comment's concern about static analysis tools potentially flagging the
IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXTmacro remains valid as a tooling configuration note, but there are no technical issues with the inheritance or implementation.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search the codebase for references to StepGeom_TessellatedItem outside of this file. rg -A 5 "StepGeom_TessellatedItem"Length of output: 34
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's verify the inheritance hierarchy and related references more comprehensively # First, check for any references to TessellatedItem in the codebase rg -i "tessellateditem" -A 5 # Also check for the specific class and its inheritance ast-grep --pattern 'IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT($_, $_)' # Check for any related header files fd -e hxx -e h "StepVisual_CoordinatesList"Length of output: 66060
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the CoordinatesList header and its inheritance fd -e hxx "StepVisual_CoordinatesList" -x cat {} # Also check for any references to StepGeom_TessellatedItem specifically rg "StepGeom_TessellatedItem" -A 5 # Let's verify if there are any other classes inheriting from TessellatedItem ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ : public StepVisual_TessellatedItem'Length of output: 1925
🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 17-17: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
src/StepVisual/StepVisual_TessellatedGeometricSet.cxx (1)
18-18: Refactored base class usage appears correct; ensure static analysis configuration is updated.
The transition toStepVisual_TessellatedItemin RTTI is consistent with the surrounding code changes, but note that theIMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXTmacro might require separate configuration in your static analysis environment to avoid false positives.Below is a script to confirm there are no remaining references to the old base class throughout the codebase:
🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 18-18: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
…tration and instance checking
dpasukhi
force-pushed
the
test_compare_Instance
branch
from
83b40a0 to
63ece9c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (2)
48-59: Consider adding level-based optimization to string-based SubType.While the iterative implementation is good, this method could benefit from the same level-based optimization used in the Handle-based version if the type registry maintains a mapping of names to levels.
67-72: Consider documenting memory management responsibility.The implementation is efficient using optimal allocation, but it would be helpful to document:
- Who owns the returned pointer
- When/how the allocated memory should be freed
- Whether the returned pointer should be wrapped in a Handle immediately
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
src/Standard/Standard_Transient.cxx(2 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx(2 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx(6 hunks)src/StepVisual/StepVisual_CoordinatesList.cxx(1 hunks)src/StepVisual/StepVisual_TessellatedGeometricSet.cxx(1 hunks)src/XCAFDoc/XCAFDoc_NotesTool.cxx(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- src/Standard/Standard_Transient.cxx
- src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
src/XCAFDoc/XCAFDoc_NotesTool.cxx
[error] 39-39: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_DERIVED_ATTRIBUTE is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx
[error] 21-21: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
src/StepVisual/StepVisual_CoordinatesList.cxx
[error] 17-17: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
src/StepVisual/StepVisual_TessellatedGeometricSet.cxx
[error] 18-18: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (4)
2-2: LGTM! Copyright and includes look good.The copyright update and include reordering are appropriate changes. The
IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXTmacro is a standard OCCT RTTI implementation pattern.Also applies to: 16-17, 21-21
23-32: Good optimization with hierarchical level tracking!The addition of
myLevelis a smart optimization that can improve type checking performance by allowing early termination of hierarchy traversal. The initialization logic is well-implemented:
- Root types (no parent) start at level 0
- Child types increment their parent's level by 1
34-45: Excellent performance optimization in type checking!The new iterative implementation with level-based optimization is more efficient:
- Avoids recursive call overhead
- Early termination when the target type's level is higher than current type
- Thread-safe implementation using immutable data
62-64: LGTM! Print method provides clear debug output.The implementation properly handles address and name formatting for debugging purposes.
src/StepVisual/StepVisual_CoordinatesList.cxx (1)
17-17: Verify the architectural change impact.The base class change from
StepGeom_TessellatedItemtoStepVisual_TessellatedItemrepresents a significant architectural shift. While the change aligns with moving tessellation functionality to the Visual domain, please ensure:
- All virtual methods from
StepVisual_TessellatedItemare properly implemented- Existing code using
dynamic_castorIsKindwith the old base class is updated- Documentation reflects this architectural change
✅ Verification successful
Base class change is architecturally sound and safe
The verification shows that this is a well-structured architectural change:
StepVisual_TessellatedItemis a proper base class that exists in the codebase and is used consistently across the StepVisual module.- No references to
StepGeom_TessellatedItemwere found in the codebase, suggesting this is not a breaking change.- The header file shows proper inheritance and implementation of the base class functionality.
- The class is widely used across the codebase, particularly in tessellation-related visual components, which aligns with its placement in the StepVisual module.
The change appears to be part of a cohesive design where tessellation functionality is properly organized under the Visual domain.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for potential affected code paths echo "Searching for references to StepGeom_TessellatedItem..." rg "StepGeom_TessellatedItem" -l echo "Searching for potential dynamic_cast usage..." rg "dynamic_cast.*StepGeom_TessellatedItem" -l echo "Checking for IsKind calls that might need updates..." rg "IsKind.*STANDARD_TYPE.*StepGeom_TessellatedItem" -lLength of output: 476
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's verify if StepVisual_TessellatedItem exists and check its inheritance hierarchy echo "Checking for StepVisual_TessellatedItem definition..." rg -l "class.*StepVisual_TessellatedItem" echo "Checking for CoordinatesList usage patterns..." rg "StepVisual_CoordinatesList" -l # Check header file for class definition echo "Looking for header files..." fd "StepVisual_CoordinatesList.hxx" # If found, let's examine its content if fd "StepVisual_CoordinatesList.hxx" | grep -q .; then echo "Header content:" cat $(fd "StepVisual_CoordinatesList.hxx") fiLength of output: 5624
🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 17-17: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
src/StepVisual/StepVisual_TessellatedGeometricSet.cxx (1)
18-18: Document the design pattern change.The base class change from
StepGeom_TessellatedItemtoStepVisual_TessellatedItemis part of a broader refactoring pattern, as evidenced by similar changes inStepVisual_CoordinatesList. This suggests a deliberate move of the tessellation hierarchy from the Geometric to Visual domain.Please ensure:
- Update relevant design documentation to reflect this architectural change
- Add comments explaining the rationale for moving tessellation to the Visual domain
- Consider adding migration guides if this is a breaking change
🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 18-18: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
src/XCAFDoc/XCAFDoc_NotesTool.cxx (1)
39-39: Validate macro configuration and consider impact of changing the base class.This macro-based approach appears consistent with OCCT’s attribute registration framework; however, the static analysis warning suggests the macro might be unfamiliar to the tool. Ensure that your static analysis configuration includes the definition for
IMPLEMENT_DERIVED_ATTRIBUTE, or suppress the warning if it is a known macro from OCCT. Also verify that switching fromXCAFDoc_NoteCommenttoTDataStd_GenericEmptydoes not introduce unexpected behaviors or break backward compatibility for existing note-based data.🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 39-39: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_DERIVED_ATTRIBUTE is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
…descriptor registration
…nd improve type descriptor handling
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (2)
34-45: Consider adding documentation for the optimization logicThe new iterative implementation with level and size checks is more efficient and safer than a recursive approach. However, consider documenting these optimizations:
- Level comparison for early termination
- Size check assumption (derived types can't be smaller)
- Iterative traversal to prevent stack overflow
Standard_Boolean Standard_Type::SubType(const Handle(Standard_Type)& theOther) const { + // Iteratively traverse the type hierarchy with early termination: + // 1. Level check: derived type must have higher or equal level than base + // 2. Size check: derived type must have larger or equal size than base const Standard_Type* aTypeIter = this; while (aTypeIter && theOther->myLevel <= aTypeIter->myLevel && theOther->mySize <= aTypeIter->mySize) {
48-59: Consider optimizing the type name comparison loopThe current implementation continues traversing the hierarchy even after finding a match. Consider breaking the loop early:
Standard_Boolean Standard_Type::SubType(const Standard_CString theName) const { const Standard_Type* aTypeIter = this; - do - { + while (aTypeIter) + { if (IsEqual(theName, aTypeIter->Name())) { return true; } aTypeIter = aTypeIter->Parent().get(); - } while (aTypeIter); + } return false; }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx(2 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx(6 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx
[error] 21-21: There is an unknown macro here somewhere. Configuration is required. If IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT is a macro then please configure it.
(unknownMacro)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (4)
2-2: LGTM: Copyright update and header organizationThe copyright update and header reorganization look good. Moving
Standard_Mutex.hxxbeforeStandard_Type.hxxmaintains proper include order.Also applies to: 16-17
23-32: LGTM: Well-structured constructor with hierarchy trackingThe constructor is well-formatted and introduces a smart hierarchical level tracking system through
myLevel. This will help optimize type hierarchy traversal operations.
62-64: LGTM: Clean print implementationThe print method properly handles format manipulation for address (hex) and name (decimal) output.
67-72: LGTM: Efficient type registrationThe implementation correctly uses placement new with OCCT's optimal allocator, ensuring proper memory management for type objects.
…proved performance
… and enhance registry management
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
src/BinMDataStd/BinMDataStd_GenericExtStringDriver.cxx(1 hunks)src/Interface/Interface_InterfaceModel.cxx(1 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx(2 hunks)src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx(5 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx
[error] 122-122: syntax error
(syntaxError)
🔇 Additional comments (16)
src/BinMDataStd/BinMDataStd_GenericExtStringDriver.cxx (1)
50-50: No concerns with direct return of type descriptor.
This approach is consistent with the broader changes to remove unnecessary static variables and simplifies the code.src/Interface/Interface_InterfaceModel.cxx (1)
47-47: Directly returning the type descriptor is fine.
Removing the static variabletrand returningSTANDARD_TYPE(Interface_ReportEntity)directly streamlines the code and aligns with the updated design.src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (9)
2-2: Updated copyright notice
No issues; reflects current year range.
16-17: Header reordering
Including<Standard_Mutex.hxx>before<Standard_Type.hxx>is fine; no concerns detected.
21-21: RTTI macro instantiation
UsingIMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT(Standard_Type, Standard_Transient)to establish RTTI forStandard_Typeis consistent. No issues.
23-32: Reformatted constructor & newmyLevelinitialization
InitializingmyLevelfrom the parent is a clear approach to track inheritance depth. Implementation looks correct.
34-45: Iterative approach forSubType(Handle(Standard_Type))
Refactoring from a purely recursive approach to this iterative check improves clarity. The conditional also checksmySize, which might help identify exact or smaller class sizes. Overall, logic seems fine.
48-59: Iterative approach forSubType(Standard_CString)
This method parallels the previous logic by traversing through parents. Straightforward and effective.
62-64: Updated
Printing the descriptor’s address in hex and the type name is a suitable diagnostic approach.
67-85: Namespace & static registry access
Encapsulating the registry in a static function ensures correct initialization and destruction order. Usage of a static mutex is correct for thread safety.
90-110: Registry-basedRegistermethod
Protecting updates withStandard_Mutex::Sentryensures thread safety. Reusing an existing type if found is a good optimization. Implementation looks correct.src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx (5)
96-102: Inlining type descriptor retrieval
Usingconstexprforget_type_name()and a static instance forget_type_descriptor()is a standard approach for implementing OCCT RTTI macros. No issues found.
112-123: Out-of-line RTTI definition
Approach aligns with established macro patterns (DEFINE_STANDARD_RTTIEXT/IMPLEMENT_STANDARD_RTTIEXT). Implementation is coherent with the new registration approach.
183-183: Template-based deserialization
ReusingT::get_type_descriptor()inInstance()ensures uniform type registration usage.
199-199: Trivialized destructor
The pure inline destructor in the header is consistent with the out-of-line destructor method in the .cxx that removes the type from registry.
211-215: New class members
The added fieldsmyInfo,myLevel, and reference tomyParentproperly capture additional metadata. Implementation follows the design in the .cxx.
| Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() | ||
| { | ||
| // remove descriptor from the registry | ||
| registry_type& aRegistry = GetRegistry(); | ||
| Standard_ASSERT(aRegistry.erase(myInfo) > 0, "Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() cannot find itself in registry",); | ||
| registry_type& aRegistry = GetRegistry(); | ||
| Standard_Mutex::Sentry aSentry(GetRegistrationMutex()); | ||
| Standard_ASSERT(aRegistry.erase(myInfo) > 0, "Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() cannot find itself in registry", ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Destructor registry removal syntax error
There is a trailing comma in the Standard_ASSERT call that can cause a syntax error according to static analysis. A minimal fix is to remove that extra comma.
- Standard_ASSERT(aRegistry.erase(myInfo) > 0, "Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() cannot find itself in registry", );
+ Standard_ASSERT(aRegistry.erase(myInfo) > 0, "Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() cannot find itself in registry");📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() | |
| { | |
| // remove descriptor from the registry | |
| registry_type& aRegistry = GetRegistry(); | |
| Standard_ASSERT(aRegistry.erase(myInfo) > 0, "Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() cannot find itself in registry",); | |
| registry_type& aRegistry = GetRegistry(); | |
| Standard_Mutex::Sentry aSentry(GetRegistrationMutex()); | |
| Standard_ASSERT(aRegistry.erase(myInfo) > 0, "Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() cannot find itself in registry", ); | |
| Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() | |
| { | |
| // remove descriptor from the registry | |
| registry_type& aRegistry = GetRegistry(); | |
| Standard_Mutex::Sentry aSentry(GetRegistrationMutex()); | |
| Standard_ASSERT(aRegistry.erase(myInfo) > 0, "Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() cannot find itself in registry"); |
🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 122-122: syntax error
(syntaxError)
…eturn a const reference for improved performance
…nt potential dereferencing errors
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (1)
121-126:⚠️ Potential issueFix trailing comma in Standard_ASSERT
There's a syntax error due to a trailing comma in the
Standard_ASSERTcall.- Standard_ASSERT(aRegistry.erase(myInfo) > 0, "Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() cannot find itself in registry", ); + Standard_ASSERT(aRegistry.erase(myInfo) > 0, "Standard_Type::~Standard_Type() cannot find itself in registry");🧰 Tools
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
[error] 126-126: syntax error
(syntaxError)
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (1)
66-68: Consider improving output formatting readabilityWhile the implementation is correct, consider using named variables for better readability.
- AStream << std::hex << (Standard_Address)this << " : " << std::dec << myName; + const auto address = (Standard_Address)this; + AStream << std::hex << address << " : " << std::dec << myName;
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 cppcheck (2.10-2)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx
[error] 126-126: syntax error
(syntaxError)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
src/Standard/Standard_Type.cxx (5)
23-32: Well-structured constructor with improved type hierarchy trackingGood improvement adding the
myLevelmember initialization. This optimization allows for early rejection in subtype checks when the level difference makes inheritance impossible.
34-63: Excellent optimization of type checking logicThe changes to both
SubTypemethods show significant improvements:
- Changed from recursive to iterative approach, reducing stack overhead
- Added early rejection checks using type level and size in the Handle version
- Improved readability with clear iteration logic
71-89: Well-implemented thread-safe type registryGood implementation with:
- Proper use of static initialization
- Thread safety through mutex
- Clean namespace usage
94-119: Clean and thread-safe type registrationWell-structured implementation with proper thread safety and efficient early returns for existing types.
16-17: Verify include order change impactThe reordering of includes (moving
Standard_Mutex.hxxbeforeStandard_Type.hxx) might affect header dependencies. Please ensure this doesn't introduce circular dependencies.✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual content of these headers to verify if there's any circular dependency.
Include order change is safe
The reordering of includes (moving
Standard_Mutex.hxxbeforeStandard_Type.hxx) is safe. The verification shows that:
- Neither header includes the other, so there's no circular dependency
- Both headers are independent of each other
- The order change in the implementation file (
Standard_Type.cxx) is purely cosmetic and won't affect the build or runtime behavior🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for potential circular dependencies between these headers for header in Standard_Mutex.hxx Standard_Type.hxx; do echo "Checking includes in $header:" rg -l "#include.*$header" src/Standard/ doneLength of output: 1913
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the content of Standard_Mutex.hxx echo "=== Content of Standard_Mutex.hxx ===" rg -A 5 "#include.*Standard_Type" src/Standard/Standard_Mutex.hxx || echo "No include of Standard_Type found" echo -e "\n=== Content of Standard_Type.hxx ===" rg -A 5 "#include.*Standard_Mutex" src/Standard/Standard_Type.hxx || echo "No include of Standard_Mutex found"Length of output: 465
Just for test purposes
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Standard_Typeclass.Standard_Transientclass.StepVisual_CoordinatesListandStepVisual_TessellatedGeometricSetclasses to improve runtime type identification.XCAFDoc_NotesToolclass to enhance note management.Technical Improvements
Standard_Typeclass.Standard_Typeclass implementation.BinMDataStd_GenericExtStringDriverandInterface_InterfaceModelclasses.SourceTypemethod inBinMDataStd_GenericExtStringDriverfor improved const-correctness.