Re: [sigc] Making libsigc++ friendlier for MSVC

[Martin Schulze <martin-ml hippogriff de>]

Am 27.07.2004 11:11:30 schrieb(en) Martin Schulze:
> Am 26.07.2004 09:46:32 schrieb(en) murrayc murrayc com:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As you know, we've been experimenting with libsigc++ on Windows.
> > Here are
> > > some other issues we've run into:
> > >

1-3 are done thanks to James' patch!

[snip]

> > > 4. The MSVC project currently does not include slot_base.cc and
> > lambda.cc.
> >
> > A patch would be welcome.

This still seems to be a TODO-item?! James?

> > > 5. As a template library, libsigc++ sometimes allocates memory in
> > the
> > > template headers and deallocates it in the library binary (or
> > vice-versa).
> > > This allows mismatched allocators/deallocators.  I'm not sure if
> > this is a
> > > problem on Linux, but it's something we readily can encountered on
> > > Windows.
> > > (We built a libsigc++ DLL using Microsoft's release runtime
> > libraries, but
> > > we
> > > unwittingly used that DLL with code we compiled with debug  
> > runtimes,
> > > resulting in memory access violations.)
> > >
> > > This is more of a nuisance than a problem--users of libsigc++ can  
> > be
> > > careful
> > > to build the library with the specific runtimes they use.  Another
> > way to
> > > avoid this would be to provide an internal allocator and
> > deallocator.
> > > I've
> > > made crude ones using a combination of malloc, free, and placement
> > new.
> > > Would there be any objections to using macros like SIGC_NEW and
> > > SIGC_DELETE
> > > everywhere instead of the standard new and delete operators?  The
> > syntax
> > > for
> > > the ones I've written is:
> > >
> > >   SIGC_NEW<type>(args)
> > >   SIGC_DELETE(ptr, ~dtor)
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd be happy to incorporate all of the above changes to the  
> > current
> > CVS
> > > sources and submit patches, if desired.
> >
> > Yes, I understand this problem. It's a well-known MSVC++ problem -  
> > you
> > need to delete stuff in the same library that you new it. Hopefully
> > this
> > is only a problem in a few places, and I would prefer only to change
> > those
> > places. I  don't like that macro syntax much - I would prefer
> > something
> > that looked like a function call.
>
> I agree with Murray - please point out the places, where you expect  
> problems!

James, did you make any progress regarding this / are there further  
investigations necessary?

Regards,

 Martin