Jump to content
Forum Login Changes ×
The Dark Mod Forums


Recommended Posts

the boost documentation says it's saver.

You're of course right, but I think the boost doc is referring to the fact that you can do things like this:

Image* img = new Image("test.jpg");  
boost::shared_ptr<Image> imgPtr(img);
delete img;

which will crash your code at the end of the scope, because the reference count of the shared_ptr will reach zero and it will try to delete the object (that has already been deleted).


That's why boost::shared_ptrs should always be initialised directly, using new:

boost::shared_ptr<Image> img(new Image("test.jpg"));

which locks the actual raw pointer away from the rest of the code, so that only the shared_ptr has control over it.


Regarding the return: it doesn't make a difference here, in terms of safety. It's just shorter to directly return the constructed boost::shared_ptr, without creating a copy. If you step over the return statement using a debugger, you will see what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 314
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ah, well then it's also possible to initialise the _texture pointer with an empty shared_ptr object:


which will technically contain a raw NULL pointer, so you will have to take care when dereferencing that object.


You can of course implement a NullMapExpression as well, it's up to you to decide whether this is convenient and worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all probability the unused return variable will be optimised out by the compiler anyway, but it's certainly clearer not to use it.


Creating a null shared_ptr is the way to go (if a null is needed for whatever reason), rather than creating an extra class just to represent null. If a member variable _texture is of class shared_ptr<IMapExpression>, it will be automatically initialised to null anyway when the class is constructed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand right, the textures need to be identified with a definite string. I have no idea what string should be used to identify a MapExpression, since a MapExpression can be build up of more than one token. Any ideas?


Edit: an idea I had is that every map expression also has a function

std::string getName();

which constructs it's name from the previous ones and adds it's own part to it. No idea if that would be ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think it's not a bad idea to equip each MapExpression with a getName() method. To ensure backwards "compatibility", the ImageMapExpressions (those delivering just the file from the disk) should just return the image name, whereas all the others generate a name like OrbWeaver suggested.


Btw: the name allows the GLTextureManager to cache the textures it loads into OpenGL. If the auto-generated name is chosen consistently, two MapExpressions with (for example) _heightmap_textures/material/name could be correctly identified as the same texture and not loaded twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it should be a combination of the token returned by its children and the own "name" of the MapExpression. A Heightmap expression "knows" about itself, so it could attach the prefix _heightmap_ to the child name.


I imagine something like this:

  • addnormals(textures/darkmod/bla, heightmap(textures/borg)) => _addnormals_/textures/darkmod/bla_heightmap_textures/borg
  • heightmap(textures/darkmod/bla) => _heightmap_/textures/darkmod/bla

Does this identifier need to be human readable in any way?

Not really, it's just a string identifier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small status report.

Yesterday evening and this evening I spent on fixing compiler errors...

atm I'm stuck on GLTexturemanager.cpp. I changed getBinding() to accept an Image& instead of a TextureConstructor. Problem is that empty Images need to be possible. And I didn't consider that non existant MapExpressions can't produce Images (not even empty ones ;-). So I guess I will have to rewrite the getBinding() to accept a MapExpression instead of an Image. Hopefully it will work afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, taking an IMapExpressionPtr as argument is better. Don't hesitate to post if you're getting really weird compiler errors. Most of them are easy to fix or to search for in google (and you're learning quite a bit from googling), but some of them are really hard to find, so it might save you some headaches.


(I once forgot to close a namespace bracket in a header file and consequently got weird errors in the "parent" file - took me a bit to find that one.)


Regarding the empty Image object: That's one thing I like about pointers over references: pointers can be NULL, whereas you can't have empty references. The solution would be to implement some exception handling, which is mostly fine, but in some situations I find this cumbersome and prefer to have a pointer-like object.


Anyway, passing the IMapExpressionPtr should be fine here. Keep it up. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the surroundings of that, but I guess it's probably enough to pass the IMapExpressionPtr without the textureKey argument here, as this can be retrieved from the MapExpression anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all the time, since the key is different sometimes (I think).

Different problem: it is not allowed to include from the plugins dir, right?

But when modifying getBinding to accept MapExpressions I need to modify the base class IGLTextureManager too. But to do that I would need to include the .h file from the plugins dir.


Edit: btw. getBinding has 3 different ways to be called on my local copy:

TexturePtr getBinding(MapExpressionPtr mapExp, const std::string& textureKey = NULL);
TexturePtr getBinding(const std::string& filename);

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely offtopic question. While compiling I get these warnings (after every file). Once I tried to fix them, but I didn't understand much. Is that important enought for a bug?

radiant/winding.h: In function 'void Winding_testSelect(Winding&, SelectionTest&, SelectionIntersection&)':
radiant/winding.h:373: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
libs/math/Vector4.h: In member function 'const BasicVector3<T>& BasicVector4<Element>::getVector3() const [with Element = double]':
libs/math/matrix.h:439:   instantiated from here
libs/math/Vector4.h:291: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
libs/math/Vector4.h: In member function 'BasicVector3<T>& BasicVector4<Element>::getVector3() [with Element = double]':
libs/transformlib.h:71:   instantiated from here
libs/math/Vector4.h:287: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The compiler warning is about this:

BasicVector3<Element>& getVector3() {
return *reinterpret_cast<BasicVector3<Element>*>(_v);

This casts the double[4] array onto a three element vector (using brute force), relying on the assumption that the memory layout of the first three doubles will match a Vector3. Creating the pointer is valid (I think), but dereferencing is the thing that gcc dislikes.


We can either disable that warning by adding -fno-strict-aliasing or fix it, although I don't know if that's easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atm my Radiant aborts, because

GLTextureManager::getBinding(MapExpressionPtr mapExp)

gets an empty MapExpressionPtr.

The old version of the MapExpressions had a function which, according to comment, evaluates to an empty texture, so getBinding worked.


If I understood the problem right, I have two possibilities, either introduce empty MapExpressions also and roll it up the way it was in the old code, or modify getBinding to check for empty MapExpressions and then return the empty texture. The second way has the disadvantage that any error checking is bypassed. So what'd you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a very common case for DarkRadiant that shaders are missing (because the map author moved them, misspelled the shader name, defined an invalid shader and so on). Do I understand it right that this is because of this?


Generally, I'd add a safety check to GLTextureManager::getBinding(), because passing an empty MapExpresionPtr could always happen in theory, and a crash of the application is not acceptable in any case. If the code is designed such that passing empty pointers are virtually impossible, you could add an assert:

GLTextureManager::getBinding(IMapExpressionPtr mapExpr) {

which will throw a runtime error as soon as an empty pointer is encountered, along with more useful information about where this happened.


The delivery of the placeholder textures ("shader image missing", "shader not found") is currently handled by the GLTextureManager as well, so it's not a problem if you move that check into getBinding(). However, if you're able to implement a better safety check outside of this method, that's of course fine too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...