I\'m just curious to know if there is any significant/serious difference in these three approaches of invoking destructor. Consider the following code. Please also consider the two cases mentioned in
I had no clue why this doesn\'t work. The following Function is created by placement new. A function is provided that checks whether it should be destructed, and if so, calls its destructor manually.
I\'ve got some code that I\'ve been using successfully for some years to implement a \"variant-type object\"; that is, a C++ object that can hold a values of various types, but only uses (approximatel
I have the following code for having a small class for storage. #include <iostream> template<typename T>
SomeObj<unsigned int>* Buffer; char* BufferPtr = MemoryManager::giveMeSomeBytes(resX*resY*sizeof(SomeObj<unsigned int>));
Can I call the C++ placement new on constructors with parameters? I am implementing a custom allocator and want to avoid having to move functionality from non-default constructors into an init functio
Hmm... Title is a bit of a mouthful, but I\'m really not sure which part of this is causing issues, I\'ve run through it a ton of times, and can\'t pinpoint why...
This is an example of my co开发者_运维问答des: template <typename T> struct MyStruct { T object;
Is this safe?I\'m not using any virtual functions in my actual implementation, but I\'m temp开发者_运维知识库ted to believe that even if I was, it would still be safe.
For a class without default constructor, operator new and placement new can be used to declare an array of such class.
加载中,请稍侯......