Andreas Kirschbaum wrote: > Mark Wedel wrote: >> The only really foolproof way would be to add some flag - something >> like 'FLAG_NEEDS_TO_BE_DESTROYED'. Instead of the object actually >> getting destroyed, that flag is set, and then there is some other >> function later that goes through and cleans these objects up. >> >> However, that would add a lot of processing time. > [...] >> But because those calls are used everywhere, that cleanup routine >> would have to examine _all_ of the objects - and lots of other code >> would have to be modified to be aware of these pending objects (in the >> for loops above, it would need to skip over these, etc). > > This "huge overhead" can be reduced to a (very small) constant overhead: > add all objects that get marked with FLAG_NEEDS_TO_BE_DESTROYED to a > list of objects_to_be_destroyed. After the processing is done (either > after the loop, or the tick, or periodically after X ticks) actually > delete all objects from objects_to_be_destroyed. At this time no other > processing is active, therefore nothing will break.
But to do that, yet another set of object pointers is needed (or perhaps use teh objectlink structure) - you can't use the next/above/below pointers, because if you mess with those, you now have a case where the pointers don't point to expected data, which is the entire problem we are running into. _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
