------- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-03-01 15:05
-------
OK, I'm back and have had time to look at this. I vaguely remember noticing
that the assignment and the deleter invocation happened in the wrong order in
our implementation, but I must have forgotten about it as I don't have any
uncommitted change (or even a comment) in my working copy.
The suggested change is still incorrect: the wrong condition is checked. The
deleter must be invoked when old_p != NULL, rather than when old_p != p.
Consider:
unique_ptr<int> p1;
p1.reset(new int);
The deleter should not be invoked by the call to reset, because old_p ==
nullptr.
Another case:
unique_ptr<int> p(new int);
p.reset(p.get());
p.release();
This should not leak, but with the suggested change it will, because the
deleter will not get invoked.
A better implementation would be (untested):
void
reset(pointer __p = pointer())
{
pointer __old = get();
std::get<0>(_M_t) = __p;
if (__old != 0)
std::get<1>(_M_t)(__old);
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43183
