-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 275
make ~solvert virtual #528
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suspect this is still needed, as otherwise prop has a ref to a deleted object. The assertion virtual ~solvert() needs to go away.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't solvert own all the objects? The comment says: "The solver class (that takes care of allocated objects)" - which appears to be far from true. My suggestion is for solvert to take a second argument
propt *prop
that my be a nullptr. solvert should then take care of deleting all non-null members. Otherwise it's rather impossible to get the order of cleanup right (as seems to be proven).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The problem is that it is not only prop. Some solvers need prop+aig, others a file,...
The simplest fix for the concrete case would be to turn cbmc_solvers.h:62 into
More generally, solvert could provide a facility to store any number of pointers in a given order and it is then responsible to clean them up in reverse order.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
May I dare to say that this is a bit of a broken design? Multiple pointers that need to be allocated and de-allocated in a certain sequence, with no well-defined ownership. Shouldn't object A referencing object B assume ownership of B, and therefore do the cleanup? Yes, this will end up as a bit more work than @mgudemann may have set out to do on this, but we should rather be re-architecting than running around with memory leaks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The problem is that the deallocation order is reverse to the subclass relation and therefore overloading the destructor performs the deallocation in exactly the wrong order.
I'll discuss a solution for this with @mgudemann.