new vs malloc, was BUG - Cygwin to GNU CC compatibility

[Randall R Schulz]

Ross, Samuel,

We can agree that regardless of the specific manifestation of multiple 
invocations of "delete" on any given pointer returned by "new," doing so is 
erroneous. And that is a universal fact of C++ programming.

Perhaps we should avoid a generic C++ API / data structure philosophy 
debate here in the Cygwin list, OK?

Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


At 18:28 2002-08-06, Ross Smith wrote:
> > From: Samuel [mailto:samuel@socal.rr.com]
> >
> > From: "Ross Smith" <rosss@pharos.co.nz>
> > >
> > > No user code should ever use "delete"; it should only appear in the
> > > implementation of a container or smart pointer.
> >
> > What? I must misunderstand what is meant, since user code
> > must always use
> > "delete" for each "new", unless the documentation of a
> > function clearly
> > states that it is the function's responsibility to "delete".
>
>This is what smart pointers (std::auto_ptr, boost::shared_ptr, etc) are
>for. Anything allocated by new should always be held by a smart pointer
>that will handle deletion automatically, never a raw pointer.
>
>--
>Ross Smith


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/