"Cristi P" writes:
> 2nd one - I'm not sure I got it - you'd want to call deleteLater()
> even on a possibly NULL object? Ain't that a dangerous territory, with
> possible crash depending on platform and compiler?
Sorry, this advice is likely to cause crashes and depends on undefined
behaviour.
> On Jan. 29, 2011, 9:28 p.m., Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
> > So you're saying is that on each login a new YahooAccount (which creates a
> > Client) is created? Do you know what part of the code creates this object?
> > My doubt is this: if the code which does this does not immediately delete
> On Jan. 29, 2011, 9:28 p.m., Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
> > So you're saying is that on each login a new YahooAccount (which creates a
> > Client) is created? Do you know what part of the code creates this object?
> > My doubt is this: if the code which does this does not immediately delete
> On Jan. 29, 2011, 9:28 p.m., Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
> > So you're saying is that on each login a new YahooAccount (which creates a
> > Client) is created? Do you know what part of the code creates this object?
> > My doubt is this: if the code which does this does not immediately delete
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/6422/#review9761
---
So you're saying is that on each login a new YahooAccount (which c
> On Jan. 29, 2011, 4:51 p.m., Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
> > Did you happen to run Valgrind to check if these objects were leaking (the
> > suppressions file in kdesdk/scripts help hide some useless warnings)? I can
> > see that the Task class has some auto-deletion code (it doesn't seem to
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/6422/#review9756
---
Did you happen to run Valgrind to check if these objects were leak
