Thanks Rick.
I started writing a reply based on my experiences so far, but I know you
could explain it better.
I have one question based on Rony's code:
void executeProgram(RexxThreadContext *threadContext, char *fname, char
*code)
{
RexxRoutineObject rro=threadContext->NewRoutine(fname, code,
(size_t) strlen(code));
RexxObjectPtr rop=threadContext->CallRoutine(rro, NULL); //
call the program without args
threadContext->ReleaseLocalReference(rro);
}
In the above, he is not releasing rop, which would be the returned object
from CallRoutine(). But only releasing rro seemed sufficient in his case
to solve the problem.
rop will also have a local reference won't it. And also be stored in table
of local references. That should also have a release shouldn't it? Each
iteration in the loop will return a new Rexx object from called routine
won't it? Or is there some reason why rop is not set with a local
reference?
--
Mark Miesfeld
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The interpreter knows nothing about any of the references you have in your
> C code. Those are just normal pointers, so nothing happens to let the
> interpreter know that those pointers are out-of-context. The only
> mechanism the interpreter has available is the context object used to
> provide the api access. That context object will keep a reference to all
> objects returned from API calls (e.g. a "local reference"). These objects
> are thus protected from garbage collection until the context is destroyed.
> Method, call, and exit contexts are destroyed when you return from the
> appropriate call out. Thread contexts for attached threads will be
> destroyed when you detach the thread. The main thread context obtained by
> creating an interpreter instance will only be destroyed when the instance
> is destroyed.
>
> For most uses, you generally don't need to bother with releasing this.
> When you return from the method/call/exit, the references will be released
> automatically. However, if you are creating large numbers of objects (for
> example, in a loop), you probably should consider releasing the references.
> The situation you raised originally is a good example, since you were
> causing a memory leak by never releasing the references for the objects you
> no longer needed.
>
> Mark Miesfeld ran into a situation with his sql lite implementation. In
> his situation, he was creating a large number of string objects and adding
> them to a collection object. All of the objects he was creating were added
> to the collection, so none of them were eligible for collection, but Mark
> started running into memory issues because the table used to keep all of
> the local references grew to an enormous size. The solution here was to
> release the local references after they were added to the collection. Not
> because the objects were no longer needed, but because the local C
> reference to the was no longer needed.
>
> Rick
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Rony G. Flatscher <
> rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> wrote:
>
>> This question may be of interest for other developers as well, so
>> moving/asking it to the ooRexx
>> developer list:
>>
>> While experimenting with a little C++ program, there would be a
>> RexxRoutineObject created using
>> NewRoutine() which then got executed with CallRoutine() many thousand
>> times. While doing so memory
>> consumption constantly increased, even when placing the two statements in
>> a function of their own.
>> Therefore I thought there was a memory leak in ooRexx and filed a bug,
>> which was invalid.
>>
>> The solution Rick pointed at was to use DeleteLocalReference() on the
>> RexxRoutineObject such that it
>> can be garbage collected, and in effect, this solves the problem!
>>
>> ---
>>
>> So far, I have been thinking, that if any RexxObject went out of scope
>> (of a block, of a function)
>> it got automatically released for the garbage collector.
>>
>> Under which conditions must/should one use ReleaseLocalReference() ?
>>
>> ---rony
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>>
>> Build for Windows Store.
>>
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oorexx-devel mailing list
>> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
