RE: [GD-Windows] new/delete across DLL's

[Jon W. <hp...@mi...>]

> Just to be clear, you're saying this is bad:
>=20
> foo *f =3D Foo::newFoo();
> delete f;

Yes. Unless operator new/delete are overridden in Foo, but=20
evenso, there's other problems you'll run into.

> but that this is good:
>=20
> foo *f =3D Foo::newFoo();
> Foo::deleteFoo(f);

Yes.

I'd prefer something like:

Foo * f =3D gFooFactory->newFoo();
f->release();

> >Un-balanced allocations/deletions really are a bad idea for a
> >variety of reasons; this being just one.
>=20
> Well, a big part of me pretty much blames the language, but that's a=20
> bit too convenient given that Microsoft's DLL idiosyncracies seem to=20
> be rather unique in the world of operating systems (although you do=20
> point out some interesting cases on Unix).

Actually, AIX, MacOS and Windows all have the "sealed container"=20
linkage model, and most other UNIX-es have the "merged global symbol=20
table" model. I like "sealed container" because it makes it possible=20
for me to prove that I tested in the same environment that I will=20
run. (Don't know about MacOS X though -- maybe they went over to the=20
dark side with their new linkage model)

Cheers,

				/ h+