David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> writes: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes: > >> We basically steal all the objects from their notmuch parents, therefore >> they are completely under Ruby's gc control. >> >> The order at which these objects are freed does not matter any more, >> because destroying the database does not destroy all the children >> objects, since they belong to Ruby now. >> > > I guess from a purist point of view this is a kind of layering > violation, since the use of talloc is purportedly an internal > implementation detail of the library. Still, I think it's a reasonable > approach given that the ruby bindings are maintained as part of notmuch, > and we are not very likely to abandon talloc. >
One issue to double check: in a few places we explicitely _don't_ use talloc. What happens when those objects are passed to talloc_steal? d _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-le...@notmuchmail.org
