2 May
2011
2 May
'11
5:54 p.m.
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Phil Bouchard <philippe@fornux.com> wrote:
On 5/1/2011 7:02 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
I'm not concerned with how cycles are being broken.
My question is, is there anything that protects all objects within a cycle from being able to dereference a pointer to an object from the cycle after that object has already been destroyed?
A block_ptr pointing to a cyclic object that has been destroyed will be nullified. It won't be dereferenced.
Yes but how do I know not to dereference it? Dereferencing a null pointer is still undefined behavior. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode