> #1 sounds pretty good to me... 2 & 3 seem like overkill. I don't > think the overhead of the null pointer is that bad. Ok, cool. I'll cook up a diff.
>> I'm partial to doing 1, 3, or nothing (in that order.) With #1, we >> could also add a feature that requires the senderState to be popped at >> every level and where we assert in the Packet destructor that >> senderState is NULL. This would ensure that you're not attaching >> things to sender state and forgetting about them (causing either a >> memory leak, or a programming error because you forgot to do >> something.) What about this feature where we ensure that senderState is NULL when we call the destructor. Think that's worth trying? I could give that a shot and see what happens. Any reason not to do this? (The alternative is to try to delete the chain of sender state objects.) Seems that one way or another we should try to avoid the memory leak. Nate _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
