[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUstep and valgrind
From: |
David Chisnall |
Subject: |
Re: GNUstep and valgrind |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:59:03 +0000 |
On 16 Mar 2018, at 08:51, Fred Kiefer <fredkiefer@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> 1) David would probably point you to the usage of ARC but as far as I
> understand you are using gcc and this is no option for your.
Note that even if you’re using GCC, if you’re using libobjc2 then you can call
the ARC objc_retainAutoreleasedReturnValue function explicitly, rather than
sending a -retain message to an autoreleased value. This will pop the top
object from the autorelease pool and transfer ownership of it to the caller.
The caller is then responsible for releasing it.
In a system with realtime requirements, autorelease pools are a really bad
idea. They will introduce pauses proportional to the total number of objects
in the pool when they are destroyed. Most realtime systems don’t allow
allocating objects at all, so Objective-C is probably exactly the wrong choice
for them.
David
- GNUstep and valgrind, amon, 2018/03/13
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, amon, 2018/03/13
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, amon, 2018/03/14
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, amon, 2018/03/16
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2018/03/16
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, Fred Kiefer, 2018/03/16
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2018/03/16
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2018/03/16
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, Fred Kiefer, 2018/03/16
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, Fred Kiefer, 2018/03/16
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2018/03/16
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, amon, 2018/03/16
- Re: GNUstep and valgrind, amon, 2018/03/17