[Solved] Question about memoryleaks using Timer and SaveHandles

[Fox536]

I was wondering when using a function like

SaveUnitHandle(hash, GetHandleId(timer), 0, unit)

when you load using

unit = LoadUnitHandle(hash, GetHandleId(timer), 0)

when you null the unit out at the end does it also null the hash's field as well? Does it still contain the variable place holder, or since it saves the handle which is a integer does it not need to be nulled?

 

[PurgeandFire]

It doesn't null the hash field. To remove the data from the hash field, you must use:

call RemoveSavedHandle(hash, GetHandleId(timer), 0)

Or you can flush the entire parent key:

call  FlushChildHashtable(hash, GetHandleId(timer))

The first will just clear the data for that specific handle saved in that area. The second will clear all data saved under the handle id of timer.

 

[Fox536]

Oh dang, I was afraid of that, lol. Most of my coding is done in C++ and C#. So I'm used to values just being values, whether the value is a object or not lol. But I was looking at the code earlier and started thinking about having to null the hash field as well.

Thanks for letting me know I don't know how big of a memory leak it would of been but I'm glad I know now XD.

 

[Magtheridon96]

If you use Table by Bribe, it would be quite easier

 

[Fox536]

How difficult are they to learn and how efficient are they compared to hashes?

 

[PurgeandFire]

How difficult are they to learn and how efficient are they compared to hashes?

It is not difficult to learn, but it may be harder if you do not know vJASS. However, Table essentially is just a nicer API (programming interface), it doesn't improve the speed or anything like that. (since it uses hashtables itself, hence the name Table) You can stick with normal hashtables if you are already comfortable with them.