feat: introduce scope abstraction #318
Open
Conversation
This file contains 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
Signed-off-by: Michael Pollind <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Pollind <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I want to uncouple the pool from the memory tracking. scopes works similarly in principle but they don't track the memory that is managed by the user.
The general gist is that a scope can take the ownership of a memory similar to a pool, but developer is required to call free on the memory from the pool and not Q_Free. this will introduce a double free where the user frees the memory as well as the scope.
the scope is just to track the lifecycle of some memory associated with some scope.
going forward I would like to omit the tracking from release builds. my plan is to have the tracking available for builds with debug symbols.