Skip to content

FIX - Crash - faustexception - on linux #9#10

Open
jdsierral wants to merge 11 commits intoglocq:masterfrom
JuanSaudio:master
Open

FIX - Crash - faustexception - on linux #9#10
jdsierral wants to merge 11 commits intoglocq:masterfrom
JuanSaudio:master

Conversation

@jdsierral
Copy link
Contributor

Heres my attempt to fix that bug :)... lets see how it goes :)...
I removed the smart pointer and used nullptr instead of argv... tested it and was working on osx... not extensive testing though

jdsierral and others added 11 commits May 6, 2021 15:02
- Suggested use of modern smart pointers (eg. std::unique_ptr) in favor of using new whenever possible.
A side effect of this is that destructors are no longer needed in most cases.

- Removed empty destructors... in general if a destructor or even a constructor is not needed it is not usually considered best practice to declare it empty. In particular with destructors there are RAII principles that suggest that declaring a destructor implies that copy and move operators should also be declared (Rule of three)

- Removed unnecessary semicolons in function definitions... these are only required if we only provide a declaration

- Added override in a couple missing places where a function was shadowing the super class implementation

No functionality was modified with these changes
- Suggested use of modern smart pointers (eg. std::unique_ptr) in favor of using new whenever possible.
A side effect of this is that destructors are no longer needed in most cases.

- Removed empty destructors... in general if a destructor or even a constructor is not needed it is not usually considered best practice to declare it empty. In particular with destructors there are RAII principles that suggest that declaring a destructor implies that copy and move operators should also be declared (Rule of three)

- Removed unnecessary semicolons in function definitions... these are only required if we only provide a declaration

- Added override in a couple missing places where a function was shadowing the super class implementation

No functionality was modified with these changes
@glocq
Copy link
Owner

glocq commented May 13, 2021

Welp. I have an issue, but I think it dates back to your earlier pull request. We should have tested seriously. The issue is: I tried some code with a parameter, but moving the slider doesn't change the parameter.

I tried to see what commit introduced the issue, it seems to be the "general code review", but it's hard to be sure because of all the merges that happen afterwards (I'm still trying to get to grips with merges in git).

I think I will go back to before your code review, and try to introduce the changes one by one with appropriate testing at each step.

Three remarks:

  • Please pull the most recent changes before changing stuff, it saves some headaches.
  • We should test the software appropriately before pushing anything (we're both guilty of not testing enough)
  • I will make a branch for development. I thought the project was confidential enough that it didn't need that, but there's already an issue of someone unsuccessful in trying to run the software.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants