[JASS] Correct group recycling

[Kazeon]

I wonder am I recycling unit group using dynamic indexing correctly or not.. Please check..

call GroupClear(Group[i])
set Group[i] = Group[MaxIndex]
set Group[MaxIndex] = null
call DestroyGroup(Group[MaxIndex])

I'm destroying them because I always create new group on cast.. please, tell me if I'm doing it wrong.. thanks..

EDIT:
I think I'm doing it wrong.. how about this? which is correct?

call DestroyGroup(Group[i])
set Group[i] = Group[MaxIndex]
set Group[MaxIndex] = null
call DestroyGroup(Group[MaxIndex])

 

[PurgeandFire]

The second one is almost correct. You don't need the last line though. That will just attempt to destroy a "null" group (which is useless):

call DestroyGroup(Group[i])
set Group[i] = Group[MaxIndex]
set Group[MaxIndex] = null

Although, that isn't actually "recycling" a group. It is just recycling an index--the group will end up destroyed. "Recycling" groups means to keep a stack of groups undestroyed, and fetch/use them when you need it (recycle them when you're done).

Also, the "correctness" of it may depend on the rest of the code (such as when you decrement the index "i", etc.). But in general, the code above should do it.

 

[Kazeon]

thanks

 

[Malhorne]

set Group[MaxIndex] = null
call DestroyGroup(Group[MaxIndex])

Means call DestroyGroup(null) xD

 

[Kazeon]

yeah, thnks for the compliment

 

[Troll-Brain]

Recycling and destroy hmm, miss i something ?

I'm not saying you shoudn't destroy groups, quite the opposite in fact, i don't believe that much in group recycling. (efficiency and memory used)

 

[Kazeon]

Recycling and destroy hmm, miss i something ?

I'm not saying you shoudn't destroy groups, quite the opposite in fact, i don't believe that much in group recycling. (efficiency and memory used)

I think I had a misunderstanding about recycling, as pnf said, it's not recycling the group, it's recycling the index.

 

[Wrda]

call DestroyGroup(Group[i])
set Group[i] = Group[MaxIndex]
set Group[MaxIndex] = null

Am I missing something or? Shouldn't you null first the Group and then set it to Group[MaxIndex]? Aren't you overwriting it?

 

[Kazeon]

I dont know D:

I just want to move all units from Group[MaxIndex] to Group without leaking shit..

 

[deathismyfriend]

Am I missing something or? Shouldn't you null first the Group and then set it to Group[MaxIndex]? Aren't you overwriting it?

nulling a variable only stops it from pointing to an object in memory.
Since setting a variable to some other object is what is being done then it does not cause any leaks.

The only variables you have to null are locals. But it has been said that nulling globals can help. They still do not cause a leak when they are not nulled.

 

[Troll-Brain]

The only variables you have to null are locals. But it has been said that nulling globals can help. They still do not cause a leak when they are not nulled.

This is false, but well, you can ignore it since it's minor.

http://www.thehelper.net/threads/new-leak-found-keeping-references-to-destroyed-objects.122136/

 

[Malhorne]

Not nulling globals will leak some memory anyway.

 

[deathismyfriend]

That is interesting I have not seen that one before.

 

[Troll-Brain]

Not nulling globals will leak some memory anyway.

I suppose you mean if it's never overwritten and holds an handle reference which is destroyed, yes, but that was not my point.

That is interesting I have not seen that one before.

Technically you also don't have to null function arguments (takes ...), they are not concerned by the reference counter bug (which can cause an handle id leak).
Also some handles don't have to be nulled (the ones which extends handle but not agent), at least that's the case for image and texttag, there is no reference counter for them. (so yes you can exploit that for some silly stuff)