Re: [Valgrind-users] closing bracket of destructor

[jody <jod...@gm...>]

I must admit this null checking of mine is also an old school left-over...


On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM, David Chapman <dcc...@ac...> wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 7:33 AM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:55 AM, jody <jod...@gm...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> void CellGrid::destroyGrid() {
>>>
>>>      if (m_apCells != NULL) {
>>>          for (coord j = 0; j < m_iNumCells; j++) {
>>>              if (m_apCells[j] != NULL)  {
>>>                  delete m_apCells[j];
>>>              }
>>>          }
>>>          delete[] m_apCells;
>>>      }
>>>
>>>    //.... other stuff unrelated to m_apCells
>>> }
>>
>> This is not related to your problem, but...  In C++ -- all versions
>> ever, standard or otherwise -- calling "delete" on a NULL pointer is
>> guaranteed to be a no-op.  So there is never a need to check for NULL
>> before calling "delete".  Doing so makes your code run slower, makes
>> it harder to read, and makes the reader wonder whether the author
>> simply does not know C++ or is trying to work around some obscure bug
>> in some compiler.
>>
>>   - Pat
>>
>
> It wasn't so obscure 20 years ago - programs compiled with Zortech C++ would
> crash if you called a virtual destructor for a NULL pointer.  That wasn't
> fixed for a couple of versions.  Fortunately, all C++ compilers of which I
> am aware today handle this properly and the NULL check is truly redundant.
> But I still find "can't delete 0 in Zortech" comments in some of my oldest
> C++ code.
>
> And now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
>
> --
>     David Chapman      dcc...@ac...
>     Chapman Consulting -- San Jose, CA
>     Software Development Done Right.
>     www.chapman-consulting-sj.com
>