Robert,

...

The following code leads to numerous leaks when lIn's contents are not an xml_archive. Any thoughts on the cause?

try { std::ifstream lIn( lpszPathName );

if( lIn.good() ) { boost::archive::xml_iarchive ia( lIn ); } } catch( boost::archive::xml_archive_exception& aExc ) { std::string lErr = aExc.what(); }

Hmm - this would surprise me. It looks to me that maybe I'm missing something about clean up from exceptions. baybe the std::ifstream lIn( lpszPathName ); should be moved outside the try block. I wouldn't think that should be necessary but now that I look at this it might be. What happens when you do this? Any C++ expert want to opine on this?

...

std::ifstream lIn( lpszPathName );

try { if( lIn.good() ) { boost::archive::xml_iarchive ia( lIn ); } } catch( boost::archive::xml_archive_exception& aExc ) { std::string lErr = aExc.what(); }

results in the same leaks. By the way this is with VC7.1. Jeff Flinn

Robert R. wrote [privately]

Originally I had used scoped_ptr there. The problem is that scoped_ptr isn't supported with all compilers - specifically Borland. I don't know about others.

If that is true then why do they pass the test??? (http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_33_0/user/smart_ ptr_release.html) If it is true scoped_ptr don't work with borland, then I suggest that you at least do template< class T > struct serialization_scoped_ptr { // extreamely simple stuff here }; best regards Thorsten

"Robert Ramey" wrote in message news:ddqq76$9ng$1@sea.gmane.org...

...

If that is true then why do they pass the test???

(http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_33_0/user/smart_

...

ptr_release.html)

a) I don't see any tests of scoped_ptr there.

it is part of smart_ptr_test.cpp.

b) If I recall correctly, the borland version of scoped_ptr fails when the type is incomplete - which makes it not useful for implementing the PIMPL idiom.

it always fails unless the destructor is included first in the cpp file IIRC.

c) I was reluctant to include the whole smart_ptr machinery for just this one case.

I am surprised that the delete in the destructor fails to delete the

ok. pimpl.

I've been unable to find the place where a constructor throws.

ok ... maybe the hypothesis can be checked by Jeff on a compiler where scoped_ptr does work? -Thorsten

I think I've fixed this. I'll test it and check it in later. Thanks for spotting and finding this. Robert Ramery Jeff Flinn wrote:

"Thorsten Ottosen" wrote in message news:ddqti0$jkh$1@sea.gmane.org...

...

"Robert Ramey" wrote in message news:ddqq76$9ng$1@sea.gmane.org...

...

...

If that is true then why do they pass the test???

(http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_33_0/user/smart_

...

ptr_release.html)

a) I don't see any tests of scoped_ptr there.

it is part of smart_ptr_test.cpp.

...

b) If I recall correctly, the borland version of scoped_ptr fails when the type is incomplete - which makes it not useful for implementing the PIMPL idiom.

it always fails unless the destructor is included first in the cpp file IIRC.

...

c) I was reluctant to include the whole smart_ptr machinery for just this one case.

ok.

...

I am surprised that the delete in the destructor fails to delete the pimpl. I've been unable to find the place where a constructor throws.

ok ... maybe the hypothesis can be checked by Jeff on a compiler where scoped_ptr does work?

The following change in xml_iarchive.hpp(along with removing the matching delete in the corresponding .ipp file) fixes the leaks:

scoped_ptr gimpl; // xml_grammar *gimpl;

Jeff Flinn

I originally used scoped_ptr but had to change it because it couldn't be made to work for borland. If someone would fix it so it works for borland, I would love to use it. Robert Ramey Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

"Robert Ramey" wrote in message news:ddrgic$te8$1@sea.gmane.org...

...

I think I've fixed this. I'll test it and check it in later. Thanks for spotting and finding this.

Robert Ramery

I would appreciate if you considered using scoped_ptr...it should work for borland... if not then maybe you could use your own simple pointer.

scoped_ptr also check via checked_delete() which is another benefit.

br

Thorsten

The current fix isn't ideal but does work (I assume) as well - and it doesn't drag in shared_ptr. So I can't see a case for changing it. Robert Ramey Russell Hind wrote:

Robert Ramey wrote:

...

I originally used scoped_ptr but had to change it because it couldn't be made to work for borland. If someone would fix it so it works for borland, I would love to use it.

I don't think scoped_ptr will ever work with Borland due to compiler bugs. Could a #ifdef change it to a shared_ptr just for Borland compilers? Not ideal but would work I assume.

Cheers

Russell