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 2013/12/04 07:34:01, yurys wrote:
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.
How about making the SmartPointerBase destructor protected?
Actually nobody should have reference it via the base class.
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.
