On Sunday, 30 August 2015 at 17:00:23 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2015 at 13:14:26 UTC, ponce wrote:
----------------
ensureNotInGC() is implemented like this:
----------------
void ensureNotInGC(string resourceName) nothrow
{
debug
{
import core.exception;
try
{
import core.memory;
void* p = GC.malloc(1); // not ideal since it
allocates
return;
}
catch(InvalidMemoryOperationError e)
{
import core.stdc.stdio;
fprintf(stderr, "Error: clean-up of %s incorrectly
depends on destructors called by the GC.\n", resourceName.ptr);
assert(false); // crash
}
}
}
--------------
...
BTW, you can use GC.free, instead of GC.malloc, with any
non-zero invalid memory address, for example:
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/af0dc9aaa29d
In the case the destructor isn't called by the GC, the call must
succeed.
GC.malloc(1) fits the bill but it's a waste of time and memory
indeed. GC.free(<invalid-adress>) would fail in both cases if I
understand correctly.
A more robust solution would be to check if the gcx.running
flag is raised, or if the GC lock is taken, like this:
https://gist.github.com/ZombineDev/14076777dff7d879d659,
however this is not currently possible, because the _gc
variable in gc.proxy is private and by default gc.proxy is not
part of the include files.
Those two would work better than GC.malloc indeed. A nice thing
is that it seems we don't need synchronization so _gc.gcx.running
would be ideal.
Since it's really straightforward to expose the information to
the user, I think this would an easy enhancement.
Perhaps as a getter like GC.isRunning()?