Hi
Bisz István wrote:
>
> I executed the following test cases with debug_new:
>
> Case 1:
>
> // With this cpp function
> // See: leakobj_with_delete.txt
> HB_FUNC( QT_QRECT_DESTROY )
> {
> //hbqt_par_QRect( 1 )->~QRect();
> delete hbqt_par_QRect( 1 );
> }
>
> Case 2:
>
>
> // With this cpp function
> // See: leakobj_without_delete.txt
> HB_FUNC( QT_QRECT_DESTROY )
> {
> hbqt_par_QRect( 1 )->~QRect();
> //delete hbqt_par_QRect( 1 );
> }
>
> Case 3:
>
> // With this cpp function
> // See: leakobj_with_destructor_and_delete.txt
> HB_FUNC( QT_QRECT_DESTROY )
> {
> hbqt_par_QRect( 1 )->~QRect();
> delete hbqt_par_QRect( 1 );
> }
>
> The resulted log files are attached.
>
> The reserved heap size at the end goes to zero just in test case 1 and 3.
> 'delete: freed 0x80b5a60 (size 4, 0 bytes still allocated)'.
> Test case 2 shows that QRect (with size 16 bytes) allocated by Qt remains
> on
> the heap. 'delete: freed 0x8e8aa60 (size 4, 16 bytes still allocated).
>
> Pritpal, could you please insert the delete operator in the destructors
> logic? An another solution is to define a new Delete() method containing
> just the delete operator.
> In any case this second solution will help the further investigations.
>
I have already implemented case 1.
But still experimenting. It is not the case that the memory is
release properly at the "END" of the application, I need to have it
released as soon as an object is "destroyed".
Hopefully we may find a solution with further investigations.
Keep on your good work of debugging and tips.
BTW which is the best case? 1 or 3 ?
Regards
Pritpal Bedi
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/demoqt-tests-with-debug_new---Leaked-objects-tp25434990p25480816.html
Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
