On Wednesday 18 December 2013 16:52:06 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2013 16:41:08, Alex Montgomery wrote: > > I think Thiago made a great point when he said, "Objects not properly > > destroyed at shutdown could be an indication of something else wrong". The > > thing that scares me most about the philosophy that we don't have to > > delete > > reachable dynamically allocated objects is that those objects never have > > their destructors called, and those destructors might do important things > > besides freeing memory. I personally still believe that Qt as a whole > > should strive to not have any on-exit leaks, because that breaks the > > implicit agreement we share as object-oriented programmers. Destructors > > are > > designed to be called. > > Note I said we should always investigate. But if the result of the > investigation is that it's harmless, I said I didn't know if we should fix > things.
But that needs: a) A central place to write down those investigated places that have been proven to be harmless so that not N people waste their time investigating b) Reinvestigation every X time to make sure it is still harmless Is it not just easier to add the "delete" and then a) nor b) are needed? Cheers, Albert > > I like Andreas's proposal. It would be the best of both worlds. > > But it's unworkable. At which point should free() become no-op? Just after > main() returns or exit() starts executing? Well, the application can > continue running for a long time after that happens, so not actually > freeing memory could leak to it blowing up. > > The best solution might be a leak suppression information to valgrind, or > use VALGRIND_FREELIKE_BLOCK. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
