Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It turned out, that it was even simpler. The explicit sweeping is > > already in the code, but is only triggered if there are objects which > > need _early_ destruction, not if objects just need > > destruction. Removing this test made it work. > > Why can't you call PIO_finish(DO_FLUSH) before the sweep?
Because the object in question is not in PIO_data. Its just a plain PMC with a destroy-function. And this destroy-function was not run until now. Some other bug was hiding that fact. > I don't > understand these workarounds. Also you mark the IOdata live, only that > they are destroyed 3 lines later then. Thats something completely different and I addmit it is a hack. When I introduced this, I had problems with closing the three _standard_ handles to early. Maybe I don't need this hack any more because the handles are now only flushed (not tested). But I left it in because its a matter of correctness. One destroy-function which prints and the problem is there again. The correct solution to this problem is destruction ordering: The standard handles should be destroyed after the interpreter (which isn't a PMC yet). > If there are no objects that need timely destruction, the sweep is wasted > time. > > > Fix is commited. > > Not IMHO. > PIO_finish still does not release the standard handles and valgrind > complains about invalid reads in PIO_flush_down. I think this is one (or two) other problems. When I think about it, I just flush the buffers, but do not free them. Will look at the code now. bye boe -- Juergen Boemmels [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fachbereich Physik Tel: ++49-(0)631-205-2817 Universitaet Kaiserslautern Fax: ++49-(0)631-205-3906 PGP Key fingerprint = 9F 56 54 3D 45 C1 32 6F 23 F6 C7 2F 85 93 DD 47
