Allow deletionof Tasks

[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.

[jonenz]

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.

[jonenz]

Before merging this I think it would make sense to move the FreeRTOS "delete" functions into the base classes. Let me know if that lines up with your logic.

[electretmike]

Thanks for looking into this. I am away this week, so only have accees to a phone. Apologies for slow replies!

I used placement-new an indeed tried to delete the task when it is no longer needed. This may change from spawning tasks to creating other helpers, such as timers.

The context is a device with a stm32h7 mcu. The device has connectors to which accesoires can be connected. We need 'drivers' . I would usually statically allocate everything, but in this case the hardware us nit static. And having all different drivers running at all time doesn't sound good.

[electretmike]

Before merging this I think it would make sense to move the FreeRTOS "delete" functions into the base classes. Let me know if that lines up with your logic.

yes, that is what I was thinking. I'm not sure, but some classes already do it like that. At leat Task didn't.

[jonenz]

Before merging this I think it would make sense to move the FreeRTOS "delete" functions into the base classes. Let me know if that lines up with your logic.

yes, that is what I was thinking. I'm not sure, but some classes already do it like that. At leat Task didn't.

Done. I'll leave this up for you to take a look at the changes when you return. Thanks for the help!

[electretmike]

Those changes look good. I just didn't check the destructors of other objects before. Only Timer, which does have the destructor in the base class.