Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
2183253002:
Make WinsockInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. (Closed)
DescriptionMake WinsockInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck.
BUG=630059
Committed: https://crrev.com/bc52bc570ca268020b38e2dbca4b37f5ff7da917
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408117}
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 2
Messages
Total messages: 25 (18 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by gogerald@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
Description was changed from ========== fix fix BUG= ========== to ========== Made DhcpcsvcInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. BUG= ==========
Description was changed from ========== Made DhcpcsvcInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. BUG= ========== to ========== Made WinsockInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. BUG=630059 ==========
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted
Patchset #1 (id:20001) has been deleted
gogerald@chromium.org changed reviewers: + agl@chromium.org
Hi, PTAL,
The CQ bit was checked by gogerald@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Description was changed from ========== Made WinsockInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. BUG=630059 ========== to ========== Make WinsockInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. BUG=630059 ==========
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
lgtm
The CQ bit was checked by gogerald@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Make WinsockInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. BUG=630059 ========== to ========== Make WinsockInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. BUG=630059 ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #1 (id:40001)
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Make WinsockInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. BUG=630059 ========== to ========== Make WinsockInitSingleton explicitly leaky to avoid the AssertSingletonAllowed() dcheck. BUG=630059 Committed: https://crrev.com/bc52bc570ca268020b38e2dbca4b37f5ff7da917 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408117} ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/bc52bc570ca268020b38e2dbca4b37f5ff7da917 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408117}
Message was sent while issue was closed.
https://codereview.chromium.org/2183253002/diff/40001/net/base/winsock_init.cc File net/base/winsock_init.cc (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/2183253002/diff/40001/net/base/winsock_init.c... net/base/winsock_init.cc:34: ~WinsockInitSingleton() { On the bug when I said "delete the destructor" I meant to do so explicitly (C++11 style) so that the compiler verifies the destructor is never invoked, i.e. something like: // The singleton instance has to be leaked (ref. comment on // |g_winsock_init_singleton| below). ~WinsockInitSingleton() = delete;
Message was sent while issue was closed.
gab@chromium.org changed reviewers: + gab@chromium.org
Message was sent while issue was closed.
https://codereview.chromium.org/2183253002/diff/40001/net/base/winsock_init.cc File net/base/winsock_init.cc (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/2183253002/diff/40001/net/base/winsock_init.c... net/base/winsock_init.cc:34: ~WinsockInitSingleton() { On 2016/07/27 14:29:17, gab wrote: > On the bug when I said "delete the destructor" I meant to do so explicitly > (C++11 style) so that the compiler verifies the destructor is never invoked, > i.e. something like: > > // The singleton instance has to be leaked (ref. comment on > // |g_winsock_init_singleton| below). > ~WinsockInitSingleton() = delete; ping, I think this would be cleaner, can you do this? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
