atom feed4 messages in org.perl.perl-xsav_fetch as part of store, and memory...
FromSent OnAttachments
Kort, EricMar 19, 2001 12:24 pm 
Dan SugalskiMar 19, 2001 2:09 pm 
Kort, EricMar 20, 2001 6:23 am 
Dan SugalskiMar 20, 2001 6:31 am 
Subject:av_fetch as part of store, and memory management?
From:Kort, Eric (
Date:Mar 19, 2001 12:24:56 pm

As my understanding of memory management continues to evolve, I wonder if one or more of you could comment on the following questions:

Perlguts states in the context of av_fetch that "If lval is set then the fetch will be part of a store." I don't understand what that means. I often use av_fetch followed by av_store, and I wonder if I am missing a shortcut or an important piece of book keeping therein by not setting lval to true? I typically just do this:

---8<----------- svNewVal = *av_fetch(avImage, i, 0); svREFCNT_inc(svNewVal); if (av_store(avGrid, i, svNewVal) == NULL ) { svREFCNT_inc(svNewVal); } ---8<-----------

Any problem there?

Perlguts also states that I must increment the reference count myself when using av_store, and decrement it if the store fails. May I presume then, from the silence on this issue elsewhere in perlguts, that I do not need to manage the reference counts myself when using av_fetch and av_push? In other words, is the fetching and storing in the following example, without any reference count increments or decrements, ok (this does not leak memory as far as I can tell, but I wonder if any experts have any critique of this):

---8<----------- SV* myFunction(SV* svImage, int iChannel, int iThreshold) { AV *avImage, *avMask; int i, iImageA; SV *r; for (i=0; i<(iImageA+1)/3; i++) { if (SvIV(*av_fetch(avImage, i*3+iChan, 0)) > iThresh) { r = *av_fetch(avImage, i*3, 0); } else { r = newSViv(0); } av_push(avMask, r); } return newRV_noinc((SV*)(avMask)); } ---8<-----------

As Dan Sugalski described this situation earlier:

*) There's a pointer to an SV in an array *) You fetch the pointer out of the array. Now both you and the array have a pointer to the same SV *) You push the pointer onto the new array. Now you and both arrays have pointers to the same SV.

But it appears that the push and fetch macros are taking care of the reference counts themselves, since this does not leak memory. Is that right?