Re: Singleton_pattern and Thread Safety

From:

Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:36:28 +0000

Message-ID:

<_bOdnS6BYpR6kJXQnZ2dnUVZ7v2dnZ2d@giganews.com>

On 15/12/2010 00:26, Ian Collins wrote:

On 12/15/10 01:10 PM, Leigh Johnston wrote:

On 14/12/2010 22:45, Ian Collins wrote:

On 12/15/10 11:32 AM, Leigh Johnston wrote:

You are starting to seem like a tedious troll.

Ah good, an insult. I win.

You have not won.

Microsoft agrees with me on the definition of a memory leak. Given the
following program:

char* p = new char[4242];

int main()
{
_CrtSetDbgFlag ( _CRTDBG_ALLOC_MEM_DF | _CRTDBG_LEAK_CHECK_DF );
}

The following is output on program termination:

Detected memory leaks!
Dumping objects ->
{68} normal block at 0x007C4A20, 4242 bytes long.
Data: < > CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
Object dump complete.

Well valgrind and dbx agree with me:

<snip>

Microsoft's definition of a memory leak:

"One of the most subtle and hard-to-detect bugs is the memory leak?the
failure to properly deallocate memory that was previously allocated."

They say nothing of unreachability. A leak can be a *consequence* of an
object becoming unreachable if said object does not delete itself. A
leak is a *consequence* of an omitted deallocation.

I am not going to continue this pointless argument with you any further
as life is too short. I pity your colleagues if you waste their time
like you are wasting mine (and others reading these posts) with such
pointless arguments.

/Leigh