https://codereview.chromium.org/101763003/diff/1/src/smart-pointers.h
File src/smart-pointers.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/101763003/diff/1/src/smart-pointers.h#newcode54
src/smart-pointers.h:54: ~SmartPointerBase() { if (p_)
Deallocator::Delete(p_); }
On 2013/12/03 16:17:55, svenpanne wrote:
Hmmm, this has been like that before, but why is it safe to have a
non-virtual
destructor in a base class here? As it is, nothing prevents an
incorrect usage
AFAICT...
This is a good question. I believe the problem is that SmartArrayPointer
and SmartPointer inherit from SmartPointerBase. This could be solved
e.g. by making SmartPointer a template with single parameter T. Then it
may use Deallocator as type traits internally, Deallocator in turn can
be specialized for array types. This way we could use SmartPointer for
both array types and scalar types.
It may make sense to replace current implementation of SmartPointer with
one from Blink or Chromium where all such problems have already been
solved. WDYT?
https://codereview.chromium.org/101763003/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
