If you look at the 1.13-1.12 diff of MsgWin.C, you'll see that I did
change one delete (there were a whole bunch in that set of commits at
that time). All of the delete's I fixed were the ones that were
automatically detected by gcc 3.2. The problems they were having were
with gcc complaining about them or not compiling because of them. I
know that gcc 3.3 has even gotten better at detecting some of these
but don't think its as good as something like purify or lint. I
figure we should fix them just to keep code as clean as possible, but
I don't always have the time. As people point them out, I will
evaluate them and change the code--but since it really doesn't affect
the code (for most compilers), I just have better things to do.
David
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 12:55, Marco Morandini wrote:
David L Thompson wrote:
> These have already been rolled into 4.3.2.
>
Perhaps I'm wrong (or the patch is simply wrong),
but I don't think so.
I guess I also don't follow. ...probably just
making the same CVS mistake as Marco.
My thinking was like this: We always used to do supply
operators new and delete although we didn't do
anything for new[] and delete[]. I never
paid much attention I just developed immunity to
'Mismatched free/delete' warnings that
purify issued. (Maybe unrelated.) So I was just going to go back and
see what the code said (and see if I could understand it).
Perhaps new[] and delete[] should have
been added. Perhaps new and delete shouldn't have
been. Perhaps... whatever.
However, among solutions, my preference is the kind that's already
checked in.
At any rate, my version of MsgWin.C (for example) uses delete
instead of delete[] just as Marco's does.
Martin
--
.............................................................................
David L. Thompson Visualization and Imagery Solutions, Inc.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5515 Skyway Drive, Missoula, MT 59804
Phone : (406)756-7472
