The clt thread, "Tcl_ObjSetVar2..., Martin Lembug, 2005-10-12 ", and Bug #1334947 revived the discussion of how to properly manage the reference count of Tcl_Objs.
This is an attempt at clarifying the issue, and a roadmap to improving both the core's refCount management as well as the documentation related to the subject.
Joe English writes: There are roughly four classes of Tcl_Obj-related library routines:
and Donal Fellows adds the category
Please note that the same function may belong to different categories with respect to different arguments: for example, as currently implemented (Tcl8.5.0 and later), the function Tcl_ObjSetVar2(interp, part1Ptr, part2Ptr, newValuePtr, flags) is a Hairy-Monster wrt part1Ptr and part2Ptr, but a Consumer wrt newValuePtr.
As a general rule, all Tcl commands should be considered to be Hairy-Monsters wrt the objects in the objv array. In other words, when constructing an objv array to pass to such commands, the objects in objv must have non-0 reference counts; in particular, newly allocated Tcl_Obj that are passed through objv must have had Tcl_IncrRef called on them, with a matching Tcl_DecrRef after the call returns.
We hope to improve the documentation wrt to the categorization of the different functions, and also to reduce significantly the population of Hairy-Monsters. As of today, Constructors and Mutators should be properly documented as such.
Note first that Constructors are not an issue: there is no Tcl_Obj to manage before you call them.
The always-safe rules are:
The optimal rules in terms of performance and code simplicity (but risky in light of incomplete documentation) are:
PYK 2017-12-30: Another category is Accessors, which return a reference to an existing Tcl_Obj. The reference count of such an object should be incremented before passing the object to a function that might decrement it. In the following example from incr Tcl, the result of Tcl_GetObjReslt is passed directly to Tcl_GetObjectFromObj, which, in case of an error, passes the object to Tcl_SetObjResult, which in turn frees it, but then accesses bytes member of the argument it was passed, which happens to be the same object it just freed:
This is a form of aliasing , where a routine ends up with two different handles to the same Tcl_Obj. To avoid errors in this case, increment the reference count before passing the Tcl_Obj to another routine:
resPtr = Tcl_GetObjResult(interp); Tcl_IncrRefCount(resPtr); Tcl_GetObjectFromObj(interp,resPtr); Tcl_DecrRefCount(resPtr);
In this example from itcl, a new Tcl_Obj with a reference count of 0 is passed to Tcl_DictObjPut, which may or may not increment the reference count:
objPtr = Tcl_NewStringObj("vars", -1); Tcl_DictObjRemove(interp, mapDict, objPtr); Tcl_DictObjPut(interp, mapDict, objPtr, infoPtr->infoVars4Ptr); Tcl_DecrRefCount(objPtr);
Instead, the reference count should first be incremented:
objPtr = Tcl_NewStringObj("vars", -1); Tcl_IncrRefCount(objPtr); Tcl_DictObjRemove(interp, mapDict, objPtr); Tcl_DictObjPut(interp, mapDict, objPtr, infoPtr->infoVars4Ptr); Tcl_DecrRefCount(objPtr);
I have been trying to understand clearly the rules for Tcl reference counting of objects, and how to properly use the increment and decrement ref count operations. I finally came across a question and answer posting elsewhere, in which Donal K. Fellows clearly explains a very, very, VERY important concept:
Tcl Does Not Garbage Collect!
What does this mean for the Tcl extension writer? If you create an object, and you never pass it back to Tcl as part of another object (eg a list object), or as the result object, it will not get freed. You MUST call Tcl_DecrRefCount() because this is where the memory deallocator gets called... and nowhere else!
It goes without saying that for a very experienced programmer such as myself to have to hunt around for this morsel of information means that the documentation for Tcl Objects in the Tcl C reference is not explicit enough in making this fact crystal clear.
It should also be pointed out that it is perfectly OK to call Tcl_DecrRefCount() to free an allocated object without first having called Tcl_IncrRefCount(). The deallocation will happen if the reference count is zero or negative. This can be the case if you must create a new object for the sole purpose of passing it as an argument to another Tcl API, but then have no further use for it. If that bit of code is called over and over, you will end up with many cats and hats wandering in the woods outside Mr. Tesla's mountain laboratory, homeless.
I hope someone finds this clarification useful.
MS: disagrees strongly with is perfectly OK - at least in the unqualified version above! If you created an object without calling Tcl_IncrRefCount(), and passed it somewhere, calling Tcl_DecrRefCount() on it is possibly disastrous: If some part of Tcl kept a reference to it you will be removing it and freeing the object, which will cause memory corruption further down the line when the reference count is decremented by the rightful owner of the reference! Similarly, if some part of Tcl did an incr/decr of the refCount, the object will already be free when you call Tcl_DecrRefCount() so that your call causes memory corruption. That advise is ONLY correct if you never ever pass the Tcl_Obj anywhere else.
I also disagree (less emphatically) about it being difficult to find that Tcl does not garbage collect. It is never implied that it does; if you have to hunt around for such a morsel of information in the C documentation you will also spend a lot of time. It is even harder to find the morsel of information that Tcl will not wash your dishes. Then again, neither will C, C++, Java or C# - and the docs keep absolute silence about that!