Daniel Holbert wrote:
(a) Your class should have an explicitly-declared non-public destructor.
(should be 'private' or 'protected')
Except for refcounted base classes (which as you note need to have a
protected virtual destructor), is there a correct style as to whether
the destructor
On 07/10/2014 02:48 AM, Neil wrote:
Except for refcounted base classes (which as you note need to have a
protected virtual destructor), is there a correct style as to whether
the destructor should be private or protected and virtual or nonvirtual?
IMO, the destructor should be nonvirtual,
On 7/10/2014 10:46 AM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
First, if your class is abstract, then it shouldn't have
AddRef/Release implementations to begin with. Those belong on the
concrete subclasses -- not on your abstract base class.
What's correct code for abstract class Foo (implementing
On 07/10/2014 08:03 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 7/10/2014 10:46 AM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
Shouldn't the refcounting still be on the concrete classes?
Why?
This happens for example with nsRunnable: nsRunnable does the
refcounting, and all the derivations of nsRunnable only have to worry
Here's an update on this front.
In Bug 1027251 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1027251 we
added a static_assert as discussed in this thread, which discovered all
remaining instances, and we fixed the easy ones, which were the majority.
The harder ones have been temporarily
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Daniel Holbert dholb...@mozilla.com wrote:
For now, our code isn't clean enough for this sort of static_assert to
be doable. :-/ And we have at least one instance of a refcounted class
that's semi-intentionally (albeit carefully) declared on the stack:
Hi dev-platform,
PSA: if you are adding a concrete class with AddRef/Release
implementations (e.g. via NS_INLINE_DECL_REFCOUNTING), please be aware
of the following best-practices:
(a) Your class should have an explicitly-declared non-public
destructor. (should be 'private' or 'protected')
Awesome work!
By the way, I just figured a way that you could static_assert so that at
least on supporting C++11 compilers, we would automatically catch this.
The basic C++11 tool here is std::is_destructible from type_traits, but
it has a problem: it only returns false if the destructor is
Actually that test program contradicts what I said --- my
IsDestructorPrivateOrDeleted produces exactly the same result as
!is_destructible, and is_destructible does return 0 for the class with
private destructor. So you could just use that!
Benoit
2014-05-28 16:51 GMT-04:00 Benoit Jacob
Nice! So it sounds like we could use std::is_destructible to harden our
refcounting-impl macros (like NS_INLINE_DECL_REFCOUNTING), by having
those macros include a static_assert which enforces that they're only
invoked by classes with private/protected destructors.
(I'll bet that this
10 matches
Mail list logo
