On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 11:25, Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia...@gmail.com> wrote: > As i already said, current code makes sure it will not happen > however it better that API will ensure this and will not trust callers.
I agree with the principle, but I think that here there is no way to do it -- if you are literally destroying an object then it is invalid to use it after destruction and there is no way to have a lock that protects against that kind of bug, unless the lock is at a higher level (ie the thing that owns the destroyed-object has a lock and doesn't allow access to it outside the lock or without a check for has-been-destroyed). Just throwing an extra mutex-lock into the destroy function doesn't add any protection. thanks -- PMM
