Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-28 12:32:14


On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 12:11 -0400, Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> On Monday 28 April 2008 09:27 am, Peter Dimov wrote:
> > The original assert catches this case, does it not?
>
> Yes. The difference would be if cache was:

You are both right, my example was a bad one.

> static map< string, weak_ptr< Object > > cache;
>
> Then the current assert would allow it (and it would probably be safe at least
> in a single-threaded context), but BOOST_ASSERT(_shared_count.empty()) would
> abort.

The main point of BOOST_ASSERT(_shared_count.empty()) is to catch more
cases than the current test. It breaks three test cases, so once again:
Are these tests correct and by design or do they pass by accident?

Regards, Daniel


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk