• =?iso-8859-1?Q?Robert_M._M=FCnch?= (11/11) Jul 01 2018 I'm creating a bunch of objects and need to use these object pointers
• Steven Schveighoffer (10/19) Jul 02 2018 If you call destroy, it does nothing for the GC. As long as it's not a

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Robert_M._M=FCnch?= <robert.muench saphirion.com> writes:

I'm creating a bunch of objects and need to use these object pointers 
with C code. Hence I need to protect them from being GC with GC.addRoot.

Can this call be made out of a constructor? So that I can protect the 
objects as earyl as possible?

Could I then unprotect the memory inside the destructor, which I would 
call explicitly via destroy(...)? Or would a call to destroy be 
sufficient to tell the GC, now you can collect the memory?

-- 
Robert M. Münch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On 7/1/18 5:59 PM, Robert M. Münch wrote:
 I'm creating a bunch of objects and need to use these object pointers 
 with C code. Hence I need to protect them from being GC with GC.addRoot.
 
 Can this call be made out of a constructor? So that I can protect the 
 objects as earyl as possible?

Yes.

 
 Could I then unprotect the memory inside the destructor, which I would 
 call explicitly via destroy(...)? Or would a call to destroy be 
 sufficient to tell the GC, now you can collect the memory?

If you call destroy, it does nothing for the GC. As long as it's not a 
class, the GC will actually re-destruct the item when running a collection.

And yes, it is possible to removeRoot inside the dtor. However, I'd 
caution one thing -- addRoot on an already-existing root does not add it 
again. So you will cause problems if you make copies of the struct that 
removes the root. The first destructor will remove the root, and then 
it's free to be collected.

-Steve