search for: destructor

...ead (Brazilian ABNT-2 keyboard layout) for scancode mapping. Please define your layout in windows/x11drv/keyboard.c and submit them to us for inclusion into future Wine releases. See the Wine User Guide, chapter "Keyboard" for more information. fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/...

On 25 November 2010 11:03, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > I don't understand what you are saying.  Cleanups (e.g. destructors) Hi Duncan, Cleanup landing pads normally call destructors, but they're not a destructor themselves. I'm simply saying that compiler generated blocks (such as cleanups) should never depend on user variables. But I get what you're saying. If a cleanup area calls a destructor, and des...

Hi Renato, >> I don't understand what you are saying. Cleanups (e.g. destructors) > > Hi Duncan, > > Cleanup landing pads normally call destructors, but they're not a > destructor themselves. I'm simply saying that compiler generated > blocks (such as cleanups) should never depend on user variables. I see what you are saying now. Unfortunately optim...

...eyboard layout (phantom key version)) for scancode mapping. Please define your layout in windows/x11drv/keyboard.c and submit them to us for inclusion into future Wine releases. See the Wine User Guide, chapter "Keyboard" for more information. fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/...

...ing now.  Unfortunately optimizations such as > inlining can result in code ending up in cleanup landing pads. This is the part that escapes me... but I haven't spent too much time thinking about inlining EH information yet. > OK :)  Essentially what happens is as follows: when running destructors > when exiting a scope (which may be a nested scope), if a destructor throws > an exception then any remaining destructors are first run, then the > Program_Error exception is thrown at the point of the scope exit.  This > may be caught by an enclosing handler. That's a neat model...

...ike this: > > extern "C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { > item *that = 0; > try { > that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); > that->~item(); > } catch (...) { > that->~item(); > } > } No I wouldn't since destructors should never throw exceptions: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/exceptions.html#faq-17.9 > Now the point I was making is that all of the locally scoped variables will have their d'tors called automatically by the unwinding mechanism. So something like this: > > void foo() {...

Hi Renato, >> OK :) Essentially what happens is as follows: when running destructors >> when exiting a scope (which may be a nested scope), if a destructor throws >> an exception then any remaining destructors are first run, then the >> Program_Error exception is thrown at the point of the scope exit. This >> may be caught by an enclosing handler. > &gt...

...oid thunk_item_M_new( void *addr ) { > new( addr ) item; > } > > where "addr" is the address returned by alloca? To me, it would seem that if you're right, that I shouldn't need any try/catch at all. > > When I put tracer print statements in my class's destructors, I can see that they are called only if I explicitly call them via JIT'd code that calls the relevant thunk, e.g.: > > extern "C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { > item *const that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); > that->~item(); > } >...

...:25, John McCall wrote: > > One problem I foresee is that it's possible for a dispatch block to become unreachable from its landing pad. If that block is then deleted, we'd lose information about what's supposed to unwind there. This could happen if, e.g., someone had a noreturn destructor. In languages that usefully allow throws from EH destructors (i.e. Ada) I can imagine uses for this, and regardless it's well-formed code that shouldn't cause the world to explode. The way I understood Duncan's description of the Ada model, even an unconditionally throwing Ada constru...

Hi! We?ve recently come across an example where a package (minqa) creates an Rcpp Function object in a static variable. This causes R_ReleaseObject to be called by the destructor at a very late point in time - as part of the system exit function: static Function cf("c"); I?m wondering if that is considered to be ?safe?? Is the R engine supposed to stay in a state where calls to API functions are valid, even after it has shut down? It probably only ever happens w...

...gt; > Solve this in approximately the same way that libvirt does: by making > the error, current error handler, and stack of error handlers use > thread-local storage (TLS). > > The implementation is not entirely straightforward, mainly because > POSIX doesn't give us useful destructor behaviour, so effectively we > end up creating our own destructor using a linked list. I'm not sure which behaviour you are referring to, but it should work just fine -- in the destructor function, cast the void* argument to the error_data struct, and free the linked list associated. The o...

...I've wondered about optimizations we could do if we designed a new personality function. In particular, I'd like to eliminate the use of landing pads for destructing locals. Instead the LSDA would encode the pc liveness ranges of local objects, their location in the stack frame, and their destructor functions. Then the new personality function would iterator through the LSDA and call the appropriate destructors. The upshot is that functions will be smaller (no landing pad code) and there would be no landing pads in the bitcode (except for catch clauses). This is better aligned with the &qu...

Hi, I am writing C++ functions that are to be called via .Call() interface. I'd been using error() (from R.h) to return to R if there is an error, but then I realized that this might be not safe as supposedly error() doesn't throw an exception and therefore some destructors do not get called and some memory may leak. Here is a simple example extern "C" void foo() { string str = "hello"; error("message"); } The memory allocated for str is leaked. Did anyone think about this and find a way to work around the problem? Thanks...

Hi, To write a "constructor" for an S4 object, you make an initialize method which will be called by new. But how would I make a "destructor" method to be called when the S4 object is garbage collected? I'm looking at reg.finalizer, but I'm not sure how to make that work for an S4 object. I want to write a destructor because my S4 object's initialize method allocates some resources. I would like the destructor to free...

...McCall wrote: >> >> One problem I foresee is that it's possible for a dispatch block to become unreachable from its landing pad. If that block is then deleted, we'd lose information about what's supposed to unwind there. This could happen if, e.g., someone had a noreturn destructor. In languages that usefully allow throws from EH destructors (i.e. Ada) I can imagine uses for this, and regardless it's well-formed code that shouldn't cause the world to explode. > The way I understood Duncan's description of the Ada model, even an > unconditionally throwing A...

...CreateAcceleratorTableA should check that the accelerator descriptions are valid, return NULL and SetLastError() if not. fixme:font:WineEngCreateFontInstance just using first face for now fixme:font:WineEngCreateFontInstance just using first face for now fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid ... ... X Error of failed request: BadValue...

...hed with. Someone also suggested the Infiniband might also have an interest in this sort of thing, although I must admit I don''t know enough about IB to imagine why (perhaps it''s just the same as the NFS/iSCSI cases). We''ve previously looked into solutions using the skb destructor callback but that falls over if the skb is cloned since you also need to know when the clone is destroyed. Jeremy Fitzhardinge and I subsequently looked at the possibility of a no-clone skb flag (i.e. always forcing a copy instead of a clone) but IIRC honouring it universally turned into a very twi...

...;C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { >> item *that = 0; >> try { >> that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); >> that->~item(); >> } catch (...) { >> that->~item(); >> } >> } > > No I wouldn't since destructors should never throw exceptions: You're missing the point. >> Now the point I was making is that all of the locally scoped variables will have their d'tors called automatically by the unwinding mechanism. So something like this: >> >> void foo() { >> try { >&g...

...-5, freetype 1.3.1 and XFree4.0.2. I must use a Access application (Office2000) under Linux and I I have thought to wine. My problem is that when I try to install the runtime for access with: wine --winver win2000 setup.exe I obtain a series error: fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/destructor memid fixme:ole:MSFT_DoTypeInfo Assign constructor/...

...ed to dominate XYZ. > > Hi Duncan, > > I don't see how you can have dominance between a normal block and a > cleanup block. Clean-up landing pads should never use user code (since > they don't exist in userland). I don't understand what you are saying. Cleanups (e.g. destructors) can execute arbitrary user code, access arbitrary local variables etc. For example, you can pass the address of a local variable to a class which reads that value of that variable in a destructor etc. Note also that LLVM is not just used by C++, it is also used by Ada which makes huge (and subtl...