Re: Allocators and memory reclamation
- From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:07:36 -0600
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lneim0ua86uj$.5q4owyndn3kj$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:49:35 -0800 (PST), Maciej Sobczak wrote:....
Another question relates to the order of finalizing objects. If the
storage pool is torn down when the access type goes out of scope, is
the order of finalizing objects guaranteed?
AFAIK, it is not. Why should it be?
I have no idea what Dmitry is talking about. The language does require
finalization of objects when the owning access type goes out of scope.
(Another good reason to avoid conversions between access types!)
In particular, read 7.6.1(11/2) [which defines "finalization of the
collection".] Note that there is no requirement of an order on the
particular allocators, only that they all get finalized at the point of the
type declaration (in reverse, of course).
Randy.
.
- References:
- Allocators and memory reclamation
- From: Maciej Sobczak
- Re: Allocators and memory reclamation
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Allocators and memory reclamation
- Prev by Date: Re: Interfaces and private types
- Next by Date: Re: Allocators and memory reclamation
- Previous by thread: Re: Allocators and memory reclamation
- Next by thread: Re: Allocators and memory reclamation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|