Protect the function wrapped by cpp11::function
#395
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When we switch to `sexp`, this would force a cell to always exist in our protection list (because it would never release the `sexp`). While that isn't really a bad thing, it messes up our count related protection list tests.
It is technically possibly to conceive of situations where we could be wrapping a function that is temporary on the R side, and the C++ side of things outlives that R temporary function.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #294
In theory this is as simple as changing
SEXPtosexpincpp11::function.In practice, doing just that breaks some protection list related "count" tests. In the tests we assert that the size of the protection list starts at 0 at the beginning of the test, and we'd like to keep that nice assertion / property. However, if we just change to
sexpthen the count won't start at 0 if we've run themessage()related tests first. That's becausemessage()previously maintained astatic cpp11::functionvariable holdingbase::message. Switching tosexpmeans that we now always maintains a protection list count of >0, because it never releasesbase::message. My solution is to switch away fromstatic cpp11::functionto a lower level method throughr_message()that doesn't use the cpp11 protection list.