== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
On 4/19/11 1:04 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
And one other note -- delete will eventually be deprecated. In order to
free memory, you must use clear and GC.free.
-Steve
Well, why? It
lenochware Wrote:
Well, I don't understand internal architecture at all, but from user's point
of
view it would be good keep some simple and nice way to remove object. I like
if I
can have things under control - if I want.
clear(myObjectThatMustGo);
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
And one other note -- delete will eventually be deprecated. In order to
free memory, you must use clear and GC.free.
-Steve
Well, why? It seems like a bad decision to me.
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:04:38 -0400, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
And one other note -- delete will eventually be deprecated. In order to
free memory, you must use clear and GC.free.
-Steve
Well, why? It seems like a bad decision to me.
I'm neutral on
On 4/19/11 1:04 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
And one other note -- delete will eventually be deprecated. In order to
free memory, you must use clear and GC.free.
-Steve
Well, why? It seems like a bad decision to me.
The feature is not going away, just the keyword.
Andrei:
(Some GCs are unable to implement
delete meaningfully.)
Manual memory disposal for the GC heap will be implemented as a template
function with semantics defined by the GC implementation.
Now the function(s) that replace delete are meant to be hints for the GC. In
a system
Is it necessary free memory allocated for member of structure, like in C? I
suppose not (we have gc). Example:
struct BITMAP {
(...)
ubyte[] pixels;
}
BITMAP* bitmap = new BITMAP;
bitmap.pixels = new ubyte[100*100];
(...)
// delete bitmap.pixels; //not necessary?
delete bitmap;
== Quote from %u (lenochw...@gmail.com)'s article
Is it necessary free memory allocated for member of structure, like in C? I
suppose not (we have gc). Example:
struct BITMAP {
(...)
ubyte[] pixels;
}
BITMAP* bitmap = new BITMAP;
bitmap.pixels = new ubyte[100*100];
(...)
// delete
I see...thanks for answer. And if I call delete bitmap, it will be removed
immediatelly, or it doesn't matter and gc will remove it when it will start its
cycle?
So even ubyte[] pixels will be allocated on the stack ?? What is prefered method
to allocate large byte array, then? Should I use
On 04/18/2011 10:31 AM, %u wrote:
Is it necessary free memory allocated for member of structure, like in C? I
suppose not (we have gc). Example:
struct BITMAP {
(...)
ubyte[] pixels;
}
BITMAP* bitmap = new BITMAP;
bitmap.pixels = new ubyte[100*100];
(...)
// delete bitmap.pixels; //not
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:31:26 -0400, %u lenochw...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it necessary free memory allocated for member of structure, like in
C? I
suppose not (we have gc). Example:
struct BITMAP {
(...)
ubyte[] pixels;
}
BITMAP* bitmap = new BITMAP;
bitmap.pixels = new ubyte[100*100];
(...)
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:31:26 -0400, %u lenochw...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it necessary free memory allocated for member of structure, like in
C? I
suppose not (we have gc). Example:
struct BITMAP {
(...)
ubyte[] pixels;
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:44:38 -0400, lenochware lenochw...@gmail.com
wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:31:26 -0400, %u lenochw...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it necessary free memory allocated for member of structure, like in
C? I
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:03:10 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:44:38 -0400, lenochware lenochw...@gmail.com
wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:31:26 -0400, %u lenochw...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it necessary
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:21:46 -0400, Graham Fawcett fawc...@uwindsor.ca
wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:03:10 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:44:38 -0400, lenochware lenochw...@gmail.com
wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:38:56 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:21:46 -0400, Graham Fawcett fawc...@uwindsor.ca
wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:03:10 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:44:38 -0400, lenochware lenochw...@gmail.com
wrote:
==
On Apr 19, 11 01:25, Graham Fawcett wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:38:56 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:21:46 -0400, Graham Fawcettfawc...@uwindsor.ca
wrote:
[snip]
The recommended alternative to destruction is to use clear, since it
runs the appropriate
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:17:11 -0400, KennyTM~ kenn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 19, 11 01:25, Graham Fawcett wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:38:56 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:21:46 -0400, Graham Fawcettfawc...@uwindsor.ca
wrote:
[snip]
The recommended alternative
18 matches
Mail list logo