From: NeBuR I (neburuv++at++hotmail.com)
Date: 06/24/2005 08:19:21
I fear this will surely have been discussed in the past, but I haven't found
it in the archive. I apologize if I'm falling back to an answered question.
Well, my question is about deletion of performer objects. Initially, all
classes derived from pfMemory should their objects to be deleted with
pfDelete(), instead of standard c++ operator delete. But some tests I've
done incite me to ask myself if memory is really freed with pfDelete().
I've tried three simple pieces of code:
// Test #1: new/delete of C++ built-in type.
while (true)
{
float * f = new float;
cout << "new float: 0x" << f << endl;
delete f;
}
The first test always prints out the same pointer value, which is a clear
evidence of memory being reserved and freed. If memory wouldn't be freed,
operator new should return a different pointer value each iteration.
// Test #2: new/pfDelete of pfGroup.
pfInit();
pfConfig();
while (true)
{
pfGroup * g = new pfGroup;
cout << "new pfGroup: 0x" << g << endl;
pfDelete(g);
}
pfExit();
The second test prints out a different pointer value each iteration. That is
what takes me to think there's something wrong here with pfDelete().
// Test #3: new/delete of pfGroup.
pfInit();
pfConfig();
while (true)
{
pfGroup * g = new pfGroup;
cout << "new pfGroup: 0x" << g << endl;
delete g;
}
pfExit();
The third and last test works as expected, as in the first one, with
operator new always returning the same pointer value.
Now, my questions are: do this three tests prove the wrong behaviour of
pfDelete(), or perhaps I'm forgetting something? Is there a corruption risk
over shared memory pool when using operator delete with pfMemory derived
objects, beyond ignoring the reference counting mechanism?
Thank you in advance.
_________________________________________________________________
Dale rienda suelta a tu tiempo libre. Encuentra mil ideas para exprimir tu
ocio con MSN Entretenimiento. http://entretenimiento.msn.es/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 24 2005 - 08:19:28 PDT