Anonymous
mostly
Anonymous
Anonymous
but i personally dislike it
Anonymous
i ensure other ways not to do it with unique pointer
Anonymous
by writting a free call anytime i allocate something
Anonymous
that's no argument. I partially agree, but using std::unique_ptr is a good way for ownership
in fact i should get used to those STL classes
Anonymous
and also setting segmentation fault things
Anonymous
we have to use them quite often in robotics as outside of a class
Anonymous
members should have the lifetime of the class
Anonymous
especially when it comes to virtual inheritance
Anonymous
example?
file a bug report then
no need it is too minute a case to file an actual bug report
Anonymous
happened like 3 times for me
olli
It's so easy to make claims.. and so hard to prove them
Anonymous
but 2 of those i was trying to abuse my computer
BinaryByter
it has never done so to me
BinaryByter
though GCC is kinda shit when it comes to kernel dev ;_;
olli
probably no virtual destructor
Anonymous
https://www.quantstart.com/articles/C-Virtual-Destructors-How-to-Avoid-Memory-Leaks
Anonymous
and also setting segmentation fault things
those errors drove me crazy when i was coding for a contest
Anonymous
the other times was me purposefully causing these memory leaks
Anonymous
to see if i can use that code
Anonymous
though GCC is kinda shit when it comes to kernel dev ;_;
BECAUSE IT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT
Anonymous
like my last code i sent in this group
Anonymous
i get bored some times and make some codes
Anonymous
to test how far GCC can go
Anonymous
https://www.quantstart.com/articles/C-Virtual-Destructors-How-to-Avoid-Memory-Leaks
why should they be virtual?
Anonymous
there would be better options!
BinaryByter
https://www.quantstart.com/articles/C-Virtual-Destructors-How-to-Avoid-Memory-Leaks
virtual destructors aren't a "thing"
Anonymous
i do not push those to github
Anonymous
but sometimes i show the other devs and ask them to figure out what it says
Anonymous
without running the code
Anonymous
why?
Anonymous
tests if you really know C/C++
Anonymous
Now, xD
BinaryByter
else you wouldn't instantiate it
BinaryByter
else you wouldn't instantiate it
also, you wouldn't expect a virtual destructor to do anything
Anonymous
searched it, it says 'nested class', do you call them virtual?
Anonymous
else you wouldn't instantiate it
you do not however the thing is you require a virtual destructor overload in order for a derived class to be able to call it's own destructor
BinaryByter
searched it, it says 'nested class', do you call them virtual?
no thats not a nested class
Anonymous
that is the issue that is happening
Anonymous
a class that CANNOT be instantiated but can be inherited from.
then that's an abstract class?
BinaryByter
olli
then that's an abstract class?
abstract / interface in C# / Java is "pure virtual" in C++
Anonymous
or interface
Anonymous
abstract / interface in C# / Java is "pure virtual" in C++
yep, a class WITH PURE virtual member functions
Anonymous
every class has its own destructor
however derived destructor is not called if the base constructor is not given a virtual overload
BinaryByter
every class has its own destructor
if you use the inherited constructor/destructor you can do so with the using directive. that is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot though
Anonymous
but OOP has a same language anyway
BinaryByter
yep, a class WITH PURE virtual member functions
if one function is virtual the entire class is virutal
BinaryByter
Anonymous
and was trying to figure out why it was not working
Anonymous
took us 1 day to figure it out
olli
You need the destructor to be explictely declared as virtual to make sure the most derived destructor is also called
Anonymous
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25220229/in-c-inheritance-derived-class-destructor-not-called-when-pointer-object-to-b
Anonymous
see
Anonymous
Anonymous
which in my opinion is a bug