On Tuesday 05 July 2005 11:48 am, George Nassas wrote: > On 5-Jul-05, at 12:48 AM, Isaac Richards wrote: > >> but I have noticed that RootSRGroup is using the compiler-supplied > >> copy > >> constructor for ScheduledRecording. Is this intentional? > > > > It shouldn't be using a copy of the object like that, no. > > > >> My understanding is in these cases memcpy will be used and that's > >> definitely incompatible with the QStrings contained in that class. > >> FWIW > > > > Not true. It'll use defined copy-constructors if they exist, which is > > completely safe for QString. > > OK, I must have forgotten that one among the hundreds of other C++ > gotchas. In any case all the SR* subclasses don't need reference > members to their parent, particularly at destruction time when each of > them tries to destroy the parent that's currently destroying them. I > replaced the references with pointers.
That's a reasonable change. > I also noticed that the classes > in managedlist.h and settings.h are managed through pointers to a base > class but the majority of them are lacking virtual destructors. Fixing > those things makes valgrind happier but I still haven't found that > elusive last memory leak. It looks like something is definitely wrong > in the managed list hierarchy but I haven't quite nailed it down yet. Only the top level base class needs a virtual destructor. If a base has a virtual destructor, any classes inheriting off of it automatically have virtual destructors. Isaac
_______________________________________________ mythtv-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
