In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 02:25:50PM +0000, Miah Gregory wrote: > These two will *copy* the data from aptr and bpr to the two variables, > not "steal" the pointers. As the savepv/savepvn have just made malloc()ed > copies, and setpvn() doesn't take the pointer from you, so each time round > you've got 2 more malloc()ed bits of data that aren't free()d. Ah.. Strange. I did try it the way you're suggesting before, but I was receiving segfaults, so I presumed that I needed to copy it first. Having retried without the copy, it works. Very odd. Having said that, I accidentally missed a */ to close a comment, and got segfaults from that too, yet no compilation failure, which was strange. > replace the if clause with -snip- > and I believe that it will all work as before, but no leaks. Yeah, that works perfectly. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. > > Sort of unrelated, I notice that there are a lot of functions with names > > like xxx_mg, whose descriptions talk about handling 'set' magic. What > > does this mean? > I'd suggest reading perlguts, which describes itself as "Introduction to > the Perl API" for more general information. Ah, great.. I've looked through a few more of the listed pod manuals now, so I'm feeling a little surer about what I'm doing. > I don't know if it's covered there coherently, but you'd need to worry > about set magic if you were setting the values on SVs passed in to you. The > new SVs you've just created don't have any magic, so you aren't going wrong > by "not handling 'set' magic" > "magic" implements all sorts of special behaviour by allowing SVs to have > routines attached that are called when their value is got, set, cleared, > etc. "not handling magic" means that a routine doesn't look to see if there > is any "magic" attached, and therefore doesn't do the correct thing - > calling any magic routines, as a consequence of not even looking. Right, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining it. Anyhow, my routine is now working, and it seems to save a /lot/ of memory when dealing with large scalars, which is great. I'm still seeing a great deal of memory being swallowed up, but this seems to shave off 30/40%. Many thanks everyone. :-) -- Miah Gregory
