| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Japanese].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
close #264
|
|
|
|
|
|
proof-on-concept test, not production code. Adding precise checks are not needed for those code
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scope
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was hoping this would cause valgrind to complain less, but there is still
a lot of memory leaked (does mrb_close() actually free all of the managed
blocks?) Anyway this helps somewhat and is good practice
|
|
The following is legal code in both C and C++:
struct foo {
struct bar { int a } x;
int y;
};
...however in C++ it defines a type called "foo::bar" instead of "bar".
Just avoid this construct altogether
|