On quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2013 16:41:08, Alex Montgomery wrote: > I think Thiago made a great point when he said, "Objects not properly > destroyed at shutdown could be an indication of something else wrong". The > thing that scares me most about the philosophy that we don't have to delete > reachable dynamically allocated objects is that those objects never have > their destructors called, and those destructors might do important things > besides freeing memory. I personally still believe that Qt as a whole > should strive to not have any on-exit leaks, because that breaks the > implicit agreement we share as object-oriented programmers. Destructors are > designed to be called.
Note I said we should always investigate. But if the result of the investigation is that it's harmless, I said I didn't know if we should fix things. I like Andreas's proposal. It would be the best of both worlds. But it's unworkable. At which point should free() become no-op? Just after main() returns or exit() starts executing? Well, the application can continue running for a long time after that happens, so not actually freeing memory could leak to it blowing up. The best solution might be a leak suppression information to valgrind, or use VALGRIND_FREELIKE_BLOCK. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
