On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 20:17:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 1/26/16 9:20 AM, Igor wrote:
I have successfully malloc'ed an object but when I go to free
it in the
destructor I get an exception. The destructor simply has
~this() // destructor for Foo
{
core.stdc.stdlib.free(&this);
}
auto buffer =
core.stdc.stdlib.malloc(__traits(classInstanceSize,
App))[0..__traits(classInstanceSize, App)];
auto app = cast(App)emplace!App(buffer[]);
I tried to retain a ptr to buffer and free that but still no
good. I
also get a depreciation warning that &this is not an lvalue.
Hopefully I
don't have to keep a ptr around to this simply to free it and
avoid
future issues?
So how am I suppose to free an object?
Don't do it in the destructor.
I can only imagine that you are triggering the destructor with
destroy? In this case, destroy is calling the destructor, but
then tries to zero the memory (which has already been freed).
There is a mechanism D supports (but I believe is deprecated)
by overriding new and delete. You may want to try that. It's
deprecated, but has been for years and years, and I doubt it's
going away any time soon.
A class shouldn't care how it's allocated or destroyed. That is
for the memory manager to worry about.
um? Memory manager? I am doing it manually C++ style so I don't
have to worry about the god forsaken memory manager. Why is it so
difficult? I create the object and release it when I need to.
I can replace the destroy(f) with free(inline the code) but I
don't see why that should matter. The whole point of destructors
is to do this sort of stuff. That's why they were invented in the
first place!?!
