On Dec 18, 2007 1:52 AM, strk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 07:41:43AM +0000, Zou Lunkai wrote: > > CVSROOT: /sources/gnash > > Module name: gnash > > Changes by: Zou Lunkai <zoulunkai> 07/12/17 07:41:43 > > > > Modified files: > > . : ChangeLog > > server : character.cpp > > > > Log message: > > * server/character.cpp: remove the assertion in charcter::destroy(), > > it's not > > correct as tests confirmed. > > Zou, the assertion is there to sustain assumptions we make in the code. > For example, void movie_root::cleanupUnloadedListeners(CharacterList& ll) > uses isUnloaded() to decide wheter or not to drop references to characters, > as movie_root::cleanupDisplayList() does with _liveChars. >
I understand, then the assumption is not correct. And if we insist this assumption, always setUnloaded in ::Destroy() would be a solution, but it's not an assumption any more. > If we allow a character to return true from isDestroyed() w/out returning > true from isUnloaded() we'll keep alive a lot of stuff. > > Planarity big might be one such case (https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?21782) > or others... > Keep characters alive in the GlobalList and some listenereList, right? That's because ::CleanUpDisplayList() and ::cleanupUnloadedListeners only take care of the unloaded characters and *assume* all destroyed characters are unloaded. This assumption is debatable now, please review testcase new_child_in_unload.c. > In any case, the state of a character can not go to destroyed w/out being > first unloaded. call both unload() and then destroy() if needs be, or > make destroy() set _unloaded. > "make destroy() set _unloaded" might work practically, let's just consider the interface for a while... --zou _______________________________________________ Gnash-commit mailing list Gnash-commit@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-commit
