On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 19:26, M.C.A. (Marco) Devillers
wrote:
>
> All your proposals now boil down to: Do explicit memory management
> whereas the developer supposes that is handled for them.
There's no explicit memory management in the loop I showed. It's
explicit control of lifetime, which is w
All your proposals now boil down to: Do explicit memory management
whereas the developer supposes that is handled for them.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 8:24 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 19:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, 18:51 M.C.A. (Marco) De
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 19:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, 18:51 M.C.A. (Marco) Devillers via Gcc,
> wrote:
>>
>> Document number: SCF4C++00
>> Date: 2024-7-16
>> Audience: GCC email list
>> Reply-to: marco.devill...@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>>
>> I. Introduction
>>
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, 18:51 M.C.A. (Marco) Devillers via Gcc, <
gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> Document number: SCF4C++00
> Date: 2024-7-16
> Audience: GCC email list
> Reply-to: marco.devill...@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>
> I. Introduction
>
> Because C++ smart pointers are based on RAII it is eas
Document number: SCF4C++00
Date: 2024-7-16
Audience: GCC email list
Reply-to: marco.devill...@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
I. Introduction
Because C++ smart pointers are based on RAII it is easy to trigger an
overflow of the C stack since destructors call each other. Smart
pointers are supposed
