newbie question: uv_close and free the memory of the handle

[Ariel Machado]

Hi folks, newbie question about memory managment with uv handles:

For network handles, like uv_tcp_t, is it safe to free the memory immediately after calling uv_close () and not waiting for the callback?

example:

uv_close (handle, NULL);
free (handle);

vs:

uv_close (handle, close_done_cb);
...
close_done_cb (uv_handle_t * handle) {
   free (handle);
}

According the documentation:

void uv_close(uv_handle_t* handle, uv_close_cb close_cb)

Request handle to be closed. close_cb will be called asynchronously after this call. This MUST be called on each handle before memory is released. Moreover, the memory can only be released in close_cb or after it has returned.

Handles that wrap file descriptors are closed immediately but close_cb will still be deferred to the next iteration of the event loop. It gives you a chance to free up any resources associated with the handle.

but I've seen a lot of C ++ examples where uv_tcp_init() is placed in the class constructor and uv_close() in the class destructor, which leaves me a bit confused, if this RAII approach is introducing a problem, or is taking advantage that the socket is a file descriptor, so the closing of this kind of  handles are closed when invoking uv_close.

I'm trying to understand how to correctly create classes and instantiate and destroy objects that internally manage uv_handle_t with their asynchronous approach.

Thanks!

Thanks.

[Iñaki Baz Castillo]

No. You must always wait for the close cb before you free memory.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "libuv" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libuv+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libuv/c33f0bbe-b9d2-4dce-9188-e727be30193eo%40googlegroups.com.