Security/Reviews/Firefox4/JS-ctypes: Difference between revisions

Security/Reviews/Firefox4/JS-ctypes (view source)

65 bytes added , 19 January 2011

no edit summary

Confirmed users

69

edits

Revision as of 21:27, 19 January 2011 (view source) Briansmith (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 21:34, 19 January 2011 (view source) Briansmith (talk \| contribs) No edit summary
Line 1:		Line 1:
	See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627107 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627097. IMO, we should find a way to make memory management in js-ctypes less error-prone and add more safety mechanisms to detect/prevent usages of memory via pointers to js-ctypes-rooted GC'd objects.		See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627107 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627097. IMO, we should find a way to make memory management in js-ctypes less error-prone and add more safety mechanisms to detect/prevent usages of memory via pointers to js-ctypes-rooted GC'd objects.

	I have ~~also~~ seen "if (!item)" vs "item.isNull()" ~~confusion~~.		I have seen some misunderstanding of when to use "if (!item)" vs "item.isNull()" and when to use "item" vs "item.address()".