> It seems as though the cleaner way to solve this problem is to > provide a > function from within the .DLL which de-allocates the memory > allocated by the > .DLL. This gets rid of compiler run-time errors such as threading, > debugging, statically dynamically built libraries, etc. The cleanest solution would be to remove DOMString::transcode() from the public API. There are other ways of transcoding that don't leak memory, have better control over transcoding, and don't produce run-time errors. --Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- RE: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in V... Jesse Pelton
- Re: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in V... Earthlink Mail
- RE: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in V... Dean Roddey
- RE: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in V... Arnold, Curt
- RE: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in V... Jesse Pelton
- RE: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in V... Dean Roddey
- RE: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in V... Dean Roddey
- RE: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in V... Dave Connet
- Re: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in V... Bill Schindler
