On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Jay A. Kreibich <j...@kreibi.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:17:41PM +0300, Baruch Burstein scratched on > the wall: > > Which of the following should I be running right before calling > > sqlite3_close? > > > > while(stmt = sqlite3_next_stmt(db, stmt)) > > sqlite3_finalize(stmt); > > > > while(stmt = sqlite3_next_stmt(db, NULL)) > > sqlite3_finalize(stmt); > > > > I am not sure which will have the desired effect. > > The second, since "stmt" will be an invalid pointer by the time > the loop comes around and hits sqlite3_next_stmt() again. > > Ideally, however, your application should manage its own statements > correctly. This type of brute-force clean-up can act as a safety net, > but it can also leave dangling pointers elsewhere in the code. > Something in your code must know about those statements... and if > not, then you're leaking memory, which is just as bad. > I am aware of this. However, I am working on a C++ wrapper for sqlite. It is the wrapper's user's responsibility to make sure no statement objects still exist before the database object gets destroyed. This is just a precaution. -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. - Rich Cook _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
