Your Thoughts?

first your code is a little incorrect it should be like this:

static int count;
myVariable = new Object;
Object variables[count] = *myVariable;
count++;


for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
if (variables)
{
delete variables[i];
variables[i] = NULL;
}
}


There... that''s better..
Now a problem you could have is if you try to delete myVariable after deleting the array.
so after this if I say:

if (myVariable)
delete myVariable;

then in this case myVariable still points to a memory address, but it''s been deleted and you get an access violation.

There''s smart pointers (which is in the atl) that is a class wrapper for pointers and it keeps a reference count of all pointers accessing this object, so that we solve the problem that I mentioned above.

Hope this gives you some thoughts.
-Pac

Yes... it can be done. Just overload the new and add some reference count to each newed objects... and then after some interval, in another tread (no harm if it is in the same thread ), try iterating the list and search for any zero-ref-count newed objects, then delete it (and remove from the list too).

quote:

---

Original post by Pactuul
There''s smart pointers (which is in the atl) that is a class wrapper for pointers and it keeps a reference count of all pointers accessing this object, so that we solve the problem that I mentioned above.

---

Actually, std::auto_ptr is in the STL, and boost::smart_ptr (much more highly regarded) is, obviously, in the Boost library. ATl does have the unique CComPtr and CComQIPtr, though.

mtrneo3:
Using smart pointers is the "standard" solution to your problem. Unlike garbage collection, smart pointer-reference objects/memory get deallocated when the smart pointer object goes out of scope, so you still have control over when "garbage collection" gets done.

cool... i was just curious

dereksaw: how would you overload the new without messing up linked librarys and headers and stuff?

''''Can I go back?''''
''''No. But if you could, would you really want to?''''

- mr. neo

I believe there's an article on overloading new/delete operator's at flipcode.


here
it is.


[edited by - George2 on June 12, 2002 3:17:26 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by mtrneo3
...how would you overload the new without messing up linked librarys and headers and stuff?...

- mr. neo

---

Linked libraries are already compiled. Overloading the new won''t effect it. But, if there''s functions (inline?) that defined in include files, the order of #include DOES effect the type of new being referenced to.... unless those function refer to the original new as ::new...