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 <dpie...@redhat.com>
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/
>
>

Reply via email to