Subject: Re: [boost] [Block Pointer] Review Request
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-02 13:09:29
On 02/05/2011 02:20, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 5/1/2011 3:05 PM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>> This is not what I meant. When you have a cycle, the order in which
>> destructors are called cannot be specified.
> Wrong because block_ptr knows in which order the memory blocks were
> instantiated, just as in a FIFO.
Order of instantiation is irrelevant outside of RAII management
patterns, since an object may outlive its creator (that's the point).
> I am not sure if I understand correctly what you are saying but
> block_ptr members to other classes will be invalidated if they point to
> an object that is currently being destructed. You can see an example in
> the 3rd test of the following file:
What do you mean by the block_ptr will be invalidated? The pointer will
be set to zero?
So that's something any user should be ready for, check block pointers
are non-zero in destructors?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk