jonenz
commented
1 year ago operator delete(void*) was deleted. This prevented deletion of any task. I don't see a reason for that, and no need to delete the operator.
If I remember correctly, the thought here was that since new operators were deleted, there wouldn't be any need for the delete operator. Normal classes are allocated from the heap and owned locally/on the stack, or static classes have reserved memory.
After your suggestion for adding placement new operators (#3/#6 ), I suppose that would require delete operators to be available for manually managed objects.
Additionally, I think a StaticTask should be able to be removed.
Yes, you are probably right. Out of curiosity are you trying to use placement new and delete operators to reclaim the memory, or just want the task removed from the kernel?
For context: I have a device where devices can be added to an i2c bus, and later be removed. I want to handle that on a dynamically allocated task.
Out of curiosity what does this design look like for you? For most of my projects everything is statically allocated for the lifetime of the program, so I haven't paid as much attention to these scenarios.
electretmike
operator delete(void*) was deleted. This prevented deletion of any task. I don't see a reason for that, and no need to delete the operator.
Additionally, I think a StaticTask should be able to be removed.
For context: I have a device where devices can be added to an i2c bus, and later be removed. I want to handle that on a dynamically allocated task.