From: Simon Strandgaard <0bz63fz3m1qt3001@...>
Date: 2003-04-10T12:22:52+09:00
Subject: Re: embedding ruby with swig

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:56:52 +0000, Steve Hart wrote:
> 
> int main()
> {
>         GMScript                *ptr = NULL;
>         int                     state = 0;
>         VALUE                   vTclass;
>         VALUE                   tObj;
>         vector<GMScript *>      stack;

Suggestion for improving your code-readability:
Move your variable-declaration down to where they are
being used for the first time.  

 
>         ruby_init();
>         ruby_script("embedded");
>         ruby_init_loadpath();
>         rb_require("gm.so");

Looks fine.
 

>         for(;;)
>         {
>                 rb_load_protect(rb_str_new2("Class.rb"),0,&state);
>                 vTclass = rb_const_get(rb_cObject,
> rb_intern("MyClass"));
>                 tObj = rb_funcall(vTclass, rb_intern("new"), 0);

Looks fine.
The next 2 lines look interesting..

>                 Data_Get_Struct(tObj,GMScript,ptr);
>                 ptr->scriptObj = tObj;

There is something odd about them.. try

tObj = new GMScript;
tObj->scriptObj = tObj;


 
>                 // save on stack
>                 stack.push_back(ptr);
> 
>                 // see what it does
>                 rb_gc();
> 
>                 sleep(1);
>                 cerr << "\n";
>         }
> 
>         return 0;
> }
> 
> and I get the following out put
> [snip output]

Sorry I don't understand your output.


> So, the mark is called - but so is free. I did find that if I use a
> ruby array instead of vector, push tObj and call rb_global_variable on
> this array the free never gets called. This leads me to ask if the
> scriptObj returned from rb_funcall is the correct value to mark.
> If not, then how do I obtain the correct corresponding ruby VALUE for
> ptr . In fact, I need to do this to mark children held by
> GMScript::MyClass?

I am very sleepy right now.. maybe I understand tomorrow :-)


> Do I need to do both mark AND rb_global_variable?

No. They are mutual exlusive


--
Simon Strandgaard