Peter,
I have a comments to some of the items on your list. As Anders points out
ownership for heap-objects are very important.
>
> Do we want to something special with this cluster ? Is it really a super
> cluster ?
> Here at NBI we have been discussing a little bit the deconvolution and JJ
> pointed out that this could of course be done differently if there is a
> characteristic cluster width. A bit like what you talked about Trine.
>
> Also in destructor :
> if( fClusterTable ) {
> fClusterTable->Clear();
> delete fClusterTable;
> fClusterTable = 0;
> }
> is needed
>
I guess you don'nt need the
> fClusterTable = 0;
since thenobject is deleted anyhow.
> **
> Second memory leak is in
> BrTPCClusterFinder::FillSubClusters
> after
> cluster->AddSeq( *seq );
> we need
> delete seq;
> or AddSeq should just take the adress - propably the best solution.
You have to delete the seq. By adding the address cluster will come in two
flavours
- the single clusters that have the input sequences. (owned by event_node)
and
- deconvoluted new sequences that thus would be owned by the cluster.
To make the ownership clear a copy was made.
-- Do you have the most recent changes by Trine who worked on these methods?
> 3rd memory leak
> add
> delete [] amp;
> in
> > I will correct the above mentioned leaks when I find the tracking leaks
> and can get rid of my very useful, but also very fubar BRAT version.
>
What does fubar mean ?
Flemming
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 14 2000 - 12:42:20 EDT