Fixed bug related to missing copy constructor for static_var #51
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
BuildIt had a bug where static_var didn't have a custom copy constructor. As a result when we have code like -
where y is also a static_var, the default copy constructor is called. This is mostly OK for copying the internal stored value, but the static_var's tracking tuple is not recorded. As a result the call to the destructor fails trying to pop the tracking tuple off the stack.
This change adds 2 new copy constructors for static_var and static_var. Consequently 2 new operator= also need to be defined, since the copy constructor is user defined.
sample12 has been changed to test this behavior.