Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-15 20:46:54

I think I've fixed this. I'll test it and check it in later. Thanks for
spotting and finding this.

Robert Ramery

Jeff Flinn wrote:
> "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:ddqti0$jkh$
>> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:ddqq76$9ng$
>>>> If that is true then why do they pass the test???
>> (
>>>> ptr_release.html)
>>> a) I don't see any tests of scoped_ptr there.
>> it is part of smart_ptr_test.cpp.
>>> b) If I recall correctly, the borland version of scoped_ptr fails
>>> when the
>>> type is incomplete - which makes it not useful for implementing the
>>> PIMPL idiom.
>> it always fails unless the destructor is included first in the cpp
>> file IIRC.
>>> c) I was reluctant to include the whole smart_ptr machinery for
>>> just this one case.
>> ok.
>>> I am surprised that the delete in the destructor fails to delete
>>> the pimpl. I've been unable to find the place where a constructor
>>> throws.
>> ok ... maybe the hypothesis can be checked by Jeff on a compiler
>> where scoped_ptr does work?
> The following change in xml_iarchive.hpp(along with removing the
> matching delete in the corresponding .ipp file) fixes the leaks:
> scoped_ptr<xml_grammar> gimpl;
> // xml_grammar *gimpl;
> Jeff Flinn

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at