On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:11:01 +0000, Rob Kendrick wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:08:33PM +0000, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > > If this is *truly* a use-case we need to think about, I'll ponder making the > > root somehow static so it gets unloaded automatically, although that might > > complicate rehashing. > > The ugly destructor approach could be workable: if for some reason a > host's compiler doesn't support it, we can wrap it in a suitable #ifdef > and they can deal with the leak.
I would have thought a destructor would be the simplest option. The reason I picked up on this is because I'm doing some experiments with libwapcaplet and on-chip memory on the AMCC460ex (SAM460), as it looked a prime candidate for getting a bit of a speed boost. I quickly noticed that there was no freeing of the context and bucket, and therefore no way I could ultimately free the OCM up so other processes could use it. I don't think we should be leaking memory at all (even if it is only 4K), but not being able to free a system resource is a major problem. Chris
