Re: Problems with un-owned objects passed to closures in pygobject (gtk_cell_renderer_text_start_editing)

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Simon Feltman <s feltman gmail com> wrote:
> However, it also adds a leak for the most basic (and useless) case:
>     for i in range(10):
>         Gtk.Button()

This could arguably trigger a compiler warning, or even an error.

In any case, since there is no variable assignment, I don't think it makes
sense to make an effort to manage the returned memory (so I think your
reasoning here is perfectly sound).

I only wonder if it can be done using the G_IS_INITIALLY_UNOWNED() and
g_object_is_floating() APIs instead of GIR annotations. Aside from the low-level
platform stack I don't think the gtk-doc annotations are widely used, or obeyed
to the letter (so it feels a bit scary to trust those annotations)...
not sure if that
is wildly impossible, but I was under the impression that language bindings have
been using the 'floating' indicators for a long time before GIRs
started to exist.

Best of luck,

> This would leak the initial floating ref and the memory would be lost.
> However, I can't think of a real use case where something like that would
> ever be needed.
> The alternatives to can become grossly convoluted:
> Thoughts?
> -Simon
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Simon Feltman <s feltman gmail com> wrote:
>> I tend to agree we should be avoiding reliance on main loops (or GC
>> timing) to get the ref counts right if possible.
>> PyGObject also uses toggle refs similarly to gjs for keeping the wrappers
>> alive. However, in PyGObject this only happens if a Python instance
>> attribute is set. Whereas with gjs it seems to use a toggle ref all the time
>> just in case an attribute is set?
>> It seems like the problem at hand can be solved by maintaining the
>> floating ref and adding our own safety ref for the wrapper. With one caveat:
>> upon completion of the python callback we may consider sinking the GObject
>> if the ref is floating and the Python wrapper has a reference count greater
>> than one. This basically means code in the callback made an assignment of
>> the object to something outside of its scope and that should be considered a
>> strong reference. But that might not even be necessary. I've attempted to
>> describe this along with all the other problematic reference counting
>> situations in a separate document:
>> The biggest concern at this point is how to properly deal with vfunc
>> implementations which return objects and are annotated as "transfer none".
>> Review, corrections, and feedback is very welcome.
>> Thanks,
>> -Simon
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Tristan Van Berkom <tvb gnome org>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Giovanni Campagna
>>> <scampa giovanni gmail com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> > I know that Python doesn't have a GC in the traditional sense, but you
>>> > could still send finalization for GObject wrappers to a idle callback
>>> > so there is no risk of finalizing objects that C code assumes are
>>> > still alive.
>>> That doesn't sound like a very safe workaround to me.
>>> There are situations where a lot of code can run without the mainloop
>>> ever becoming idle, while running a ClutterTimeline is one of those
>>> cases (or at least I've observed that idle callbacks dont generally
>>> get called while a ClutterTimeline is playing, perhaps they do with
>>> an ultra high priority).
>>> Another thing to consider is that not all code written with the glib
>>> stack is actually reactive & event based, code that does not run
>>> a mainloop will risk blowing up in size quickly, possibly attaining
>>> out of memory conditions unnecessarily if the code happens to
>>> be highly recursive.
>>> Cheers,
>>>                 -Tristan

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]