Re: none

[Ingo Ruhnke]

David Philippi <address@hidden> writes:

> Why? There is one - it's called signal 11. ;-)
> Dereferencing a 0 pointer will yield a segfault with a core dump. If
> you then just use "gdb pingus core", a simple "up" will show you
> where the segfault occured and in case of a 0 pointer it will be
> very easy to recognise what's the reason.

The dummy_ptr<> did IIRC also init the value with zero, instead of
some undefined random value, but your are right, the loss of using
dummy_ptr might be bigger than the gain. Can remember if I ever
catched a bug with them.

> I can live with that, it's just that I tend to oversee the * if it's placed 
> direct behind the type and I've never though of multiplication when seeing 
> such a declaration.

class CL_Sprite;

int main ()
{
  int Sprite = 5;
  int my_sprite = 5;

  Sprite * my_sprite;
  CL_Sprite * my_sprite2;
}

I guess I know why some people say C++ is ugly...

> BTW is there hope of reducing the numbers of shared_ptr<T> ? I'd guess that 
> those are one of the main reasons for the long compilation times since 
> templates are awfully slow to compile and boost uses quite every feature of 
> templates.

Yep, most or all of them could be replaced by normal pointers if the
structure how and where the 'new' takes place is changed.

-- 
Advent:     http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/advent/
Feuerkraft: http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/feuerkraft/
Pingus:     http://pingus.seul.org/           || ICQ:      59461927
Home:       http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/  || JabberID: address@hidden