No, you posted about a POC involving keeping C references alive by putting them in a global array. I then commented that it sounded like it could be brittle and might be more complicated than just wrapping the pn_rubyref_t struct manually and directly integrating with ruby gc. You then said you had a POC that did that also. Is there a reason you didn't mention the latter POC first? Which POC is better in your estimation and why?
Also, have you been able to validate your testing strategy for either/both of these POCs? Can you generate seg faults and/or valgrind warnings when you intentionally comment out the line of code that keeps the reference alive? --Rafael On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Darryl L. Pierce <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:06:44PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > Why did you reject it then? > > Are you referring to this? > > "Though, I was hoping we could avoid having to manually do things..." > > What I meant was that I would like to keep the work within the confines > of the Swig code. > > -- > Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. > Delivering value year after year. > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ > >
