Re: Memory Leak in AudioHardwareGetProperty
Re: Memory Leak in AudioHardwareGetProperty
- Subject: Re: Memory Leak in AudioHardwareGetProperty
- From: "Art Gillespie" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:34:25 -0700
On 7/24/06, Jeff Moore <email@hidden> wrote:
Obviously you know what you are doing so feel free to ignore me.
Did you really just give me permission to ignore you?
But
you can't really complain about false positives in your code.
I didn't. I wouldn't. What I did was:
a) asked if it was a memory leak or initialization
b) thanked you for your response and made the suggestion that documentation might save someone a bit of time down the road.
This is
inevitable because global operator new/delete are shared by every
single line of C++ code executing in a process whether it is system
code like the HAL or app code. C++ provides many excellent ways to
achieve what you want to do without using the blunderbuss that is
overriding global operators.
I'd be less inclined to take you up on your offer of ignoring you if you actually gave a concrete, techncal example of why 'overriding global operators is bad mmmm'kay?' In the absence of this--or any relevant hits on a search for 'c++ blunderbuss global operators'-- I'm more inclined to take things at face value.
BTW, what the HAL is doing is totally above board. <snipped explanation>
We agree there... in my original message I posited that it might very well be setup code based on the once-only behavior I was seeing. I'm not some dogmatic fringe extremist C++ cleric who thinks a singleton is a memory leak. I was only seeking confirmation one way or the other.
Thanks once again for the clarification. As for my suggestion for a clarifying note in the docs, I suspect that this thread will suffice.
Best,
Art
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden