On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:30:41PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 11/10/2011 12:05 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: > >I would feel safer if pointers were set to NULL (or nullptr if we > >support C++11) since it is not safe to delete a pointer twice. > > I would rather argue that adding redundant "p = 0;" following a > "delete p;" makes our code worse, not better (even if that may sound > paradoxical at first): > [...]
I generally agree, but for debugging (non-product builds only) it might make sense to mark a pointer as dead, to easier identify if the zombie pointer is still dereferenced. But that should not be a NULL even in that case (which might trigger overly defensive workarounds), rather something like 0xDEADBEEF. Mind you: I am not talking about release builds. Best, Bjoern _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
