intrusive_ptr bug fix #1674
Merged
intrusive_ptr bug fix #1674
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
I realized that if intrusive_ptr<T>::reset(T*) is called with a pointer to the same object it already refers to, it could be erroneously freed because it was decrementing the existing refcnt before incrementing the refcnt of the new value. So rewrote reset() to be safe under that circumstance.
|
LGTM |
lgritz
added a commit
to lgritz/OpenImageIO
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2017
I realized that if intrusive_ptr<T>::reset(T*) is called with a pointer to the same object it already refers to, it could be erroneously freed because it was decrementing the existing refcnt before incrementing the refcnt of the new value. So rewrote reset() to be safe under that circumstance.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 realized that if
intrusive_ptr<T>::reset(T*)is called with a pointerto the same object it already refers to, it could be erroneously freed
because it was decrementing the existing refcnt before incrementing the
refcnt of the new value. So rewrote reset() to be safe under that
circumstance.