Yep, thanks and I should have clarified in my response that I wasn't sure whether it was for earlier reasons or just a we've already set a spec.
Josh. On July 10, 2003 06:26 pm, Cliff Woolley wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Joshua Moore-Oliva wrote: > > Regardless of it's usefulness, it is something that people can do. I do > > not see any performance penalty by running the cleanups before clearing > > the subpools, and it eliminates a possible segmentation fault. > > Actually it would cause a lot more segfaults if you changed it. The > reason I asked you to just take my word for it before is that these > cleanup problems are horrendously complicated and intertwined and hard to > explain, not because I was trying to say "we've already decided it and you > have no input." > > Here's one example: Let's say you have an object a in pool p and a > childpool q that has an object b (which refers to object a) in it. If you > destroy a before you cleanup pool q, then the cleanup for b will run after > things it depends on from object a are already destroyed. > > So the pool cleanup order is always LIFO... we always guarantee that when > q's cleanups run, everything in p still exists. If that were not the > case, then it would be very difficult to cleanup things in q. > > Does that help clarify? > > --Cliff
