On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:48:23 +0900
Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> (The Rasterman) wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:09:44 +0300 Daniel Zaoui
> <daniel.za...@samsung.com> said:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:53:53 -0700
> > Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > raster pushed a commit to branch master.
> > > 
> > > http://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?id=8689d54471aafdd7a5b5a27ce116bf2ab68c1042
> > > 
> > > commit 8689d54471aafdd7a5b5a27ce116bf2ab68c1042
> > > Author: Carsten Haitzler (Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com>
> > > Date:   Thu Aug 20 12:50:52 2015 +0900
> > > 
> > >     eo - destruction - ensure child is removed from parent child
> > > list 
> > >     this follows on from cbc1a217bfc8b5c6dd94f0448f19245c43eb05e0
> > > as this code was correct, but was then causing bugs due to
> > > children staying in their parent lists. this should never have
> > > happened and this is really bad. this fixes this and ensures
> > > children on destruction are gone from their parent lists.
> > >     
> > >     @fix
> > > ---
> > >  src/lib/eo/eo_base_class.c | 14 ++++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/src/lib/eo/eo_base_class.c
> > > b/src/lib/eo/eo_base_class.c index fe52203..9f8252b 100644
> > > --- a/src/lib/eo/eo_base_class.c
> > > +++ b/src/lib/eo/eo_base_class.c
> > > @@ -977,7 +977,6 @@ EOLIAN static void
> > >  _eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Eo_Base_Data *pd)
> > >  {
> > >     Eo *child;
> > > -   Eo_Base_Data *child_pd;
> > >  
> > >     DBG("%p - %s.", obj, eo_class_name_get(MY_CLASS));
> > >  
> > > @@ -987,11 +986,18 @@ _eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Eo_Base_Data
> > > *pd) while (pd->children)
> > >       {
> > >          child = eina_list_data_get(pd->children);
> > > -        child_pd = eo_data_scope_get(child, EO_BASE_CLASS);
> > > -        pd->children = eina_list_remove_list(pd->children,
> > > pd->children);
> > > -        child_pd->parent_list = NULL;
> > >          eo_do(child, eo_parent_set(NULL));
> > >       }
> > > +   // remove child from its parent on destruction - ha to be done
> > > +   if (pd->parent)
> > > +     {
> > > +        Eo_Base_Data *parent_pd;
> > > +
> > > +        parent_pd = eo_data_scope_get(pd->parent, EO_BASE_CLASS);
> > > +        parent_pd->children =
> > > eina_list_remove_list(parent_pd->children,
> > > +
> > > pd->parent_list);
> > > +        pd->parent_list = NULL;
> > > +     }
> > >  
> > >     _eo_generic_data_del_all(pd);
> > >     _wref_destruct(pd);
> > > 
> > 
> > The parent should never be !NULL when reaching the destructor. Imo,
> > this code has not to be here. Instead, an error message should be
> > displayed in the case the parent is still connected to the object.
> > There is a bug but definitely the solution doesn't have to be here.
> > I think this issue may happen if eo_del is never called and
> > eo_unref is called instead. We need to check inside _eo_unref that
> > the parent is NULL and display an error message.
> > 
> > Tom, any thoughts?
> 
> eo_suite simple examples show this case. in fact i think the test
> case is broken too... but as such i followed the code, and read it.
> if you destruct a child, the parent still has a list entry pointing
> to it.
> 
> _eo_unref() gets to 0, and _eo_del_internal() calls the destructor...

eo_del unparents it and that's the issue of the test, as it is not called 
before destruction. I think the test has not been adapted when references 
mechanism has changed.
Anyway, eo_unref should display an error message indicating that only one ref 
exists and belongs to the parent. I think it should force unparenting too.

> this does nothing in the way of removing from a parent (read it). the
> base class destructor is the only place to do this... and so i added
> it.
> 
> look at
> 
> START_TEST(eo_refs)
> 
> here:
> 
>    obj = eo_add(SIMPLE_CLASS, NULL);
>    obj2 = eo_add(SIMPLE_CLASS, obj);
>    eo_unref(obj2);
>    eo_ref(obj2);
>    eo_del(obj2);
>    eo_unref(obj);

I don't see how this test is supposed to work. eo_ref and eo_del should not 
work well as the object is already deleted. As I said, it doesn't seem updated 
with last Eo changes.

> 
> we create obj, then obj2 as a child of obj, then unref obj2. after
> this unref of obj2, obj2 was still in the child list of obj. this
> isn't a complex case. its an insanely simple one. our own test cases
> never caught this issue until i "fixed" the code above that pointed
> this out. the base class destructor never removes an object from its
> parent list. no code in the destructor to do that at all. i fixed
> that :)

The code is not supposed to be in the destructor as everything should have been 
done before to not have a parent at this time. That's why I say the fix should 
not be there imo but more in _eo_unref.

> 
> 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to