On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 3:54 AM David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> wrote: > > 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?
Seems like talloc aborts. Are there any of such objects? -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-le...@notmuchmail.org
