Lee Newberg
Lee Newberg
The force push just now updates the commit message.
> @Leengit Interesting +1 Can you please be more specific about: > > > This original use supported sloppy code where a pointer was used even after the last SmartPointer...
With my next push, I will reword the commit message and PR message to omit the "sloppy code" language. I was worried about it, but that's not the same thing!
> Will your PR solve this warning? Yes, I think it might fix that warning at that point in the code. However, if you want to use that stack variable...
@blowekamp Thank you for the excellent feedback. I have not tried Valgrind. I will figure out how that is done with ITK ... though if you have a quick pointer...
I am following the valgrind procedure from https://itk.org/Wiki/ITK/Dynamic_Analysis_Practices and will report back.
> @Leengit Would such a round-trip still be supported with your pull request? Yes, that still works.
As the commit message for the latest commit indicates: Keeping it simple: with this commit we are reverting pretty much all changes in the previous commit that are not directly...
I just fixed a spelling error in the commit message. I am re-running valGrind on this simpler commit to make sure that it doesn't break anything ... and I will...
FWIW, the new implementation, of setting `m_ReferenceCount` to `0` instead of to `1` in the `itk::LightObject` constructor, mirrors the implementation we already have of setting `ReferenceCount` to `0` in the...