Adrian,
opal_obj_update does not fail or success, it returns the new
obj_reference_count.
can you point to one specific location in the code where you think it is
wrong ?
OBJ_RELEASE(buffer)
buffer = NULL;
could be written as
if (((opal_object_t *)buffer)->obj_reference_count == 1) {
OBJ_RELEASE(buffer);
} else {
buffer = NULL;
}
that would never ever set buffer to NULL twice, but would be wrong
since there is no atomicity here
/* that was for for the "unnecessary" part */
about the "wrong" part, why do you think the else branch is wrong ?
/* i mean setting a pointer to NULL is not necessarily wrong */
Cheers,
Gilles
On 2015/02/12 16:41, Adrian Reber wrote:
> At many places all over the code I see
>
> OBJ_RELEASE(buffer)
> buffer = NULL;
>
> Looking at the definition of OBJ_RELEASE() this seems unnecessary and
> wrong:
>
> #define OBJ_RELEASE(object) \
> do { \
> if (0 == opal_obj_update((opal_object_t *) (object), -1)) { \
> opal_obj_run_destructors((opal_object_t *) (object)); \
> free(object); \
> object = NULL; \
> } \
> } while (0)
>
> The object is set to NULL by the macro and only if the opal_obj_update() was
> successful. So it seems setting the buffer manually to NULL after
> OBJ_RELEASE()
> is unnecessary and if opal_obj_update() failed it also is wrong.
>
> Adrian
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> de...@open-mpi.org
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> Link to this post:
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/02/16970.php
