On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 09:52:07AM -0800, Kenton Varda wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:50 AM, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Isn't this a common scenario in C++ for which stdlib provides a simple
> solution, std::auto_ptr? std::auto_ptr is a lightweight class designed
> to "RAIIify" pointers. What am I missing?
>
>
> Deleting the objects on shutdown is easy. The problem is that doing so while
> another thread is still using them may crash the program. If your program is
> careful to shut down all background threads before exiting, then it's fine,
> but
> many people write code which isn't so clean, and some of these people insist
> that libraries should not delete their objects at exit for exactly this
> reason.
I'm referring to having a static auto_ptr variable. I'm not familiar
with how this can manifest the danger you describe. Can you point it
out in the following example?
#include <pthread.h>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
class B
{
public:
~B()
{
std::cout<<"destructor called"<<std::endl;
}
int alive()
{
return 1;
}
};
class A
{
public:
static std::auto_ptr<B> b;
};
std::auto_ptr<B> A::b(new B);
void *threadFunc(void* p)
{
while(1)
{
std::cout<<A::b->alive()<<" ";
}
}
int main()
{
pthread_t t;
int rc;
int p;
rc = pthread_create(&t, NULL, threadFunc, (void *)p);
sleep(1);
return 1;
}
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
