Andrei Alexandrescu, el 6 de octubre a las 21:36 me escribiste: > >I don't think it is a good idea (GC-wise) to say that in the specs. > >I think the GC implementor should be free to decide if a delete really > >free the memory or not. Some collectors can do this very naturally (like > >the current one) and some others don't (like allocators that uses > >pointer-bump allocation). I think the language should divide destruction > >and deallocation, but I don't think is a good idea not to notify the GC at > >all when delete is used. I think the GC should be able to do whatever it > >feels is good for him (so the user should not rely either on the memory > >being actually freed or otherwise). > > > > I agree insofar as a GC could be tipped by the compiler that no live > reference of the object exists after delete.
Great! For example, this would let me protect the object pages (if it's a large object that uses one or more full pages) when they are freed so the program segfaults as soon as a deleted object is used when it shouldn't. That could be a nice debugging feature :) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey you, with you ear against the wall Waiting for someone to call out Would you touch me?