Hello Jeff,

 

thank you for the help. 

 

Isn't it necessary to check if mcode-> procPtr is null before the line:

 

} else if (mcode-> procPtr->firstLocalPtr) {

 

Zolt�n Tyukodi

________________________________

From: Jeff Hobbs [mailto:jeffh@[...].com] 
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 19:51
To: Tyukodi Zolt�n
Cc: incrtcl-users@[...].net
Subject: RE: [Incrtcl-users] ::itcl::delete class leaks?

 

Hi Zolt�n,

 

Attached is a bit more conservative variant of the same patch.  I do believe it is correct (
passes all tests, plus one new one).  I have commited this to CVS.

 

Thanks,

  Jeff Hobbs, The Tcl Guy, http://www.ActiveState.com/ 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Tyukodi Zolt�n [mailto:tyukodi.zoltan@[...].hu] 
	Sent: June 1, 2006 12:08 AM
	To: Jeff Hobbs
	Cc: incrtcl-users@[...].net
	Subject: RE: [Incrtcl-users] ::itcl::delete class leaks?

	Hello Jeff,

	 

	thank you for your suggestion but unfortunately it is not allowed me to modify the class.

	I have spent 4 days to investigate the source code of the itcl and now I think that the pro
blem is in the Itcl_DeleteMemberCode function. I have made the following modification on it:

	 

	Original version of the Itcl_DeleteMemberCode function:

	 

	void

	Itcl_DeleteMemberCode(cdata)

	    CONST char* cdata;  /* pointer to member function definition */

	{

	    ItclMemberCode* mcode = (ItclMemberCode*)cdata;

	 

	    if (mcode-> arglist) {

	        Itcl_DeleteArgList(mcode-> arglist);

	    }

	    if (mcode-> procPtr) {

	        ckfree((char*) mcode-> procPtr->cmdPtr);

	 

	        /* don't free compiled locals -- that is handled by arglist above */

	 

	        if (mcode-> procPtr->bodyPtr) {

	            Tcl_DecrRefCount(mcode-> procPtr->bodyPtr);

	        }

	        ckfree((char*)mcode-> procPtr);

	    }

	    ckfree((char*)mcode);

	}

	 

	 

	 

	 

	Fixed (by me) of version of the Itcl_DeleteMemberCode function:

	 

	void

	Itcl_DeleteMemberCode(cdata)

	    CONST char* cdata;  /* pointer to member function definition */

	{

	    ItclMemberCode* mcode = (ItclMemberCode*)cdata;

	 

	    if (mcode-> arglist) {

	        Itcl_DeleteArgList(mcode-> arglist);

	    }

	    if (mcode-> procPtr) {

	 

	        ckfree((char*) mcode-> procPtr->cmdPtr);

	 

	        /* don't free compiled locals -- that is handled by arglist above, if there are arg
uments */

	        if ( !( mcode-> arglist ) ) {

	            Itcl_DeleteArgList( mcode-> procPtr->firstLocalPtr );

	        }

	 

	        if (mcode-> procPtr->bodyPtr) {

	            Tcl_DecrRefCount(mcode-> procPtr->bodyPtr);

	        }

	        ckfree((char*)mcode-> procPtr);

	    }

	    ckfree((char*)mcode);

	}

	 

	 

	The compiled local variables are not freed, if there is not any argument of the itcl member
 procedure. Am I right?

	I think that You are one of the developers of the itcl. Is it possible that You validate my
 modification?

	 

	Thank You very much.

	 

	Zolt�n Tyukodi

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Jeff Hobbs [mailto:jeffh@[...].com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 18:23
	To: Tyukodi Zolt�n; incrtcl-users@[...].net
	Subject: RE: [Incrtcl-users] ::itcl::delete class leaks?

	 

	Itcl is apparently not cleaning up after itself properly.  I verified the leak, then just c
hanged "set n 1" to "set ::n 1", ensuring a single global var is used, and there was no long
er a leak.

	  Jeff Hobbs, The Tcl Guy, http://www.ActiveState.com/ 

		-----Original Message-----
		From: incrtcl-users-admin@[...].net [mailto:incrtcl-users-admin@[...].net] On Behalf Of Ty
ukodi Zolt�n
		Sent: May 30, 2006 12:38 AM
		To: incrtcl-users@[...].net
		Subject: [Incrtcl-users] ::itcl::delete class leaks?

		Hello,

		 

		can anybody tell me why the following script leaks memory intensively?

		 

		 

		package require Itcl

		 

		while { 1 } {

		 

		      ::itcl::class LeakClass {

		            proc leakProc {} {

		                  set n 1

		            }

		      }

		 

		      LeakClass::leakProc

		 

		      ::itcl::delete class "LeakClass"

		}

		 

		 

		There is no leak, if I remove the call of the procedure or the set n 1 line.

		I know, this is a stupid algorithm but I have to do a similar one.