TilePaletteMapper memory fix #10306
Merged
TilePaletteMapper memory fix #10306
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
FoamyGuy
changed the title
tannewt
approved these changes
May 1, 2025
Member
tannewt
left a comment
tannewt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! You are right. I did a bulk change and didn't look for pointer allocations. Will take a look again now.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
resolves: #10305
I'm not certain if this is the proper fix, but it does seem to successfully make TilePaletteMapper behave as expected. If it would be better to use
m_malloc_helperor something else I'm happy to change this to whatever is best.I wouldn't say that I have a complete understanding of the recent memory / GC improvements, but I think that I understand the basic gist of it. My theory is that
self->tile_mappingswas changed to being allocated as "without pointers" but it does actually hold pointers that point to more pointers of u_int32s so it needed to be allocated the opposite way.