if you
.def ("test_iadd", &hist_t::operator+=, bp::return_self<>())
and you use it instead of += do you get the leak?
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Nikolay Mladenov wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Neal Becker
> wrote:
> >
> >> I've been trying to track
Nikolay Mladenov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
>
>> I've been trying to track down a memory leak. When I use the following:
>>
>> .def ("__iadd__", &hist_t::operator+=, bp::return_self<>())
>>
>
> but this is no different then any other function def with return
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> I've been trying to track down a memory leak. When I use the following:
>
> .def ("__iadd__", &hist_t::operator+=, bp::return_self<>())
>
but this is no different then any other function def with return_self<>
policy (which i do a lot)?
wh
I've been trying to track down a memory leak. When I use the following:
.def ("__iadd__", &hist_t::operator+=, bp::return_self<>())
I have a leak.
When changed to:
.def (bp::self += hist_t::value_type())
there is no leak. Any ideas? I suppose I maybe should just start using the
latter st
