[Q] scoped_ptr for forward declared classes
Hello
I have a situation where
I have
struct cmoney_impl_dtl; //hidden impl is in Cpp file
struct myclass
{
boost::scoped_ptr
V S P:
Hello
I have a situation where I have
struct cmoney_impl_dtl; //hidden impl is in Cpp file struct myclass {
boost::scoped_ptr
myimpl_ptr; }
You must declare ~myclass in the header and implement it in the .cpp file. If your class didn't have a destructor you'd need myclass::~myclass() {} Otherwise, just move the implementation of ~myclass into the .cpp file.
Hello,
thank you
I tried that, but it does not work
I think the
scoped_ptr needs the destructor implementation of
my hidden impl
but that I cannot provide (because I use header files from a library
that
I cannot expose).
I for now switched to just regular ptr
and still trying to debug why shared_ptr reports mem leaks with Visual
Studio.
thank you again,
Vlad
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:38 +0300, "Peter Dimov"
V S P:
Hello
I have a situation where I have
struct cmoney_impl_dtl; //hidden impl is in Cpp file struct myclass {
boost::scoped_ptr
myimpl_ptr; }
You must declare ~myclass in the header and implement it in the .cpp file. If your class didn't have a destructor you'd need
myclass::~myclass() {}
Otherwise, just move the implementation of ~myclass into the .cpp file.
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users -- V S P toreason@fastmail.fm
-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class
V S P:
and still trying to debug why shared_ptr reports mem leaks with Visual Studio.
In general, for us to be able to help, you have to post a complete program that reports a leak. Your previous example was not just heavily abbreviated and used the wrong class names, it also didn't have any uses of shared_ptr at all (although it did have a thread_specific_ptr.) False leak reports are typically caused by static variables whose destructors haven't yet run when the leak report is generated. Try calling .reset() on all static shared_ptr variables before exit and see if the leaks disappear.
thank you very much,
I do have quite a few static variables.
I will try this if does not work, I will create an example
of the problem and post it here.
I actually started using
_CrtMemState state;
_CrtMemCheckpoint(&state2);
//my heap allocation code goes here
_CrtMemDumpAllObjectsSince(&state);
and I am seeing much fewer, so I think it coincides with your suggestion
about static initializations.
Vlad
I was just looking for 'look here or try there' type of suggestion
which you provided.
thanks again,
Vlad
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:33 +0300, "Peter Dimov"
V S P:
and still trying to debug why shared_ptr reports mem leaks with Visual Studio.
In general, for us to be able to help, you have to post a complete program that reports a leak. Your previous example was not just heavily abbreviated and used the wrong class names, it also didn't have any uses of shared_ptr at all (although it did have a thread_specific_ptr.)
False leak reports are typically caused by static variables whose destructors haven't yet run when the leak report is generated. Try calling .reset() on all static shared_ptr variables before exit and see if the leaks disappear.
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users -- V S P toreason@fastmail.fm
-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
participants (2)
-
Peter Dimov -
V S P