On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 03:26:45 +0200, Luca Barbieri <l...@luca-barbieri.com> wrote: > Thanks! > > But, does this mean that if I allocate using new(existing_ir) ir_foo() > or opposed to new(talloc_parent(existing_ir)) ir_foo() then this new > object will always remain alive as long as existing_ir is alive, even > if it's no longer referenced? > > If so, why would anyone do that, which seems to occur frequently in > the codebase?
Because we were lazy. Fixing would be good. > And why is an hierarchical ownership model useful at all, instead of > just doing a "mark-and-sweep" plus copying phase after all > optimizations, or maybe after a given pass if the allocated memory > grows too much? When I free a shader, I just free the shader, and the ir list, the ir, the constant storage associated with the ir_constants, the names, etc. all get freed. We've got stuff not taking advantage of this yet, since we tried to avoid rewriting all of the outside-the-compiler Mesa internals. But yes, in terms of the ownership of the ir nodes themselves, we're mark-and-sweeping except that sweep is "talloc_free()". > Also, how about just keeping the context in a thread-local variable > and using it automatically, possibly in a global way with a gc root > registration mechanism? Sounds like way more work than a function parameter to the do_* passes.
pgp6yuTgTF3mr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
