freeing result of CurrentStatetoobject



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 28/06/2005 at 05:40, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    User Information:
    Cinema 4D Version:   9.1 
    Platform:   Windows  ;   
    Language(s) :     C++  ;

    ---------
    Hi,

    I have a comprehension question. before R9 when calling MCOMMAND_CURRENTSTATETOOBJECT of ModelingCommanData it returned a baseobject as result. Now it returns an AtomArray.

    Ok, I can get the baseobjects out of it, but what´s the procedure for freeing the result now? Should I free the AtomArray or do I need to free all objects the AtomArray holds? When freeing the AtomArray does it automatically free the objects it holds?

    Thank you



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 28/06/2005 at 06:27, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    An easy test is to try and see what leaks you get :) AFAIK, yes you should free the atom array and no the atom array does not free the objects, the atom array is just a list of pointers. HTH.



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 28/06/2005 at 06:57, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    Hi Dave,

    :) I see (I thought I had leaks from this, but it seems another plugin brought up those). I found that the ModelingCommandData struct does free the AtomArray already on destruction. Doesn´t this make freeing the AtomArray obsolete? I don´t seem to get any leaks when not doing so (I only free the object that I use from the atom array), but I would like to be sure that I am on the safe side. :)

    Thank you!



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 28/06/2005 at 09:43, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    So it does, never noticed the destructor in operatingsystem :)



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 28/06/2005 at 09:47, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    :) thank you


Log in to reply