On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:06:00PM -0600, Eric Hughes wrote: > At 03:27 PM 6/15/2007, strk wrote: > >use 'smart_ptr' when not willing to have full control over lifetime, > >don't use it to expliclty manage it (and possibly allocate on the stack > >too) > > I am now pretending complete ignorance, and I'm simulating a complete > newbie to the project. > > Wouldn't it be better (contingent on its very possibility) to use a single > declaration mechanism that rolls together both RC and GC mechanisms? And > maybe even auto declarations? That way there's one type template that > means "manage my memory" that users can use and then not think about it any > more. It seems more reliable in the long term.
Both GC and RC ? Do you really want to go there ? In any case the 'smart_ptr' would allow this in the future, it's just a thing programmers can stuff their pointers in. Currently (what I'm working on) it will be *either* GC *or* RC, not both. > >GC-managed instances should *never* be deleted by anyone else that the GC. > >Also, GC-managed instances should *never* be allocated on the stack ! > > It seems there's a way around this. Consider a GC-instance whose > allocation is "auto". It is protected by a sentry that does "copy on > destroy", that is, moves if out of the stack and into the heap. The sentry > only copies if some other reference has been created to it since creation, > so that if it was treated as purely local, nothing else happens. Why all this work ? Can't we just rely on the programmer to know what he's doing and NOT registering the instance with the GC ? Simply NOT storing a pointer to that stack-instance into a gc_ptr<> class (like it wasn't be doing into an intrusive_ptr<>) would suffice. > In the case where some reference is usually created, it _is_ less efficient Passing auto values around as pointers is a bug, I'd avoid complex solution to make it safe. > >Mapping a 'smart_ptr' macro > > Small, but important: "smart_ptr" is already in Boost, it's in TR1, and > should essentially be treated as a quasi-reserved identifier. There's no 'using namespace boost' in gnash. And should never be. Our one would be gnash::smart_ptr. Anyway suggestions for a better name are welcome. --strk; _______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
