[pulseaudio-discuss] [Vala] Issues will vala and pulse vapi
aaronbpaden at gmail.com
Sat Nov 21 21:37:40 PST 2015
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Evan Nemerson <evan at coeus-group.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-11-21 at 22:45 -0600, Aaron Paden wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Evan Nemerson <evan at coeus-group.com>
>> > That's not quite right; the VAPI shouldn't indicate that a *type*
>> > is
>> > "unmanaged"… it's up to your code to indicate whether an instance
>> > is
>> > unowned. However, the question is really what the proper way to
>> > destroy an instance is.
>> > In order to determine how to destroy a struct which doesn't specify
>> > a
>> > destroy_function CCode attribute, Vala will look at the
>> > members. If
>> > none of the members require destroy or free functions, then Vala
>> > can
>> > assume that simply releasing the memory associated with the struct
>> > itself (i.e., calling g_free on heap-allocated instances, or simply
>> > allowing stack-allocated instances to go out of scope) is
>> > sufficient.
>> Hum. Sourceinfo (and SinkInfo) should not be freed at all, the C APIs
>> that retrieve them give you const pointers.
> Then they should return an unowned reference.
Is it possible to do this when the pointer is an argument? These types
are requested and then asynchronously retrieved via callbacks.
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss