Justin Seyster wrote:
We just have to add some small code [2] into the ggc_mark_roots routine of
gcc/ggc-common.c to add the scanning using this gt_ggc_r_gt_FOO_h. This is
not a big deal. We should simply add a routine
ggc_register_plugin_root_tab(const struct ggc_root_tab*) that adds its
ar
Sorry for dragging this discussion out from the distant past. I'm in
the process of porting some plug-ins from the old plugin SVN branch to
the new plug-in system, and this is one of the issues blocking me. My
plug-ins maintain some tree nodes that I want to stay alive from
function to function.
Hello All
Joern Rennecke wrote:
As long as you only need to GTY known types, you can avoid having extra GTY
roots by having all plugins share one GTY root in the plugin infrastructure;
this root can point to a list to which each plugin can add at will.
If you want new types, it gets ugly, be
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> And if garbage collection is avoidable in GCC, given the
>> strong opposition it has, all the GTY & gengtype stuff would
>> have been removed by now.
This looks like a rather uninformed opinion...
>> The mere fact it is staying here is
>
> And if garbage collection is avoidable in GCC, given the strong opposition it
> has, all the GTY & gengtype stuff would have been removed by now. The mere
> fact it is staying here is in my opinion very significant. If GC was not
> relevant in GCC, GGC & GTY would have gone long time ago. They
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
Plugins shouldn't keep permanent references to GCed memory. At least
that would make it unnecessary to do what you suggest.
I strongly disagree with that, and I simply do not understand your
position. In my perception, plugins are essent
Richard Guenther wrote:
Plugins shouldn't keep permanent references to GCed memory. At least
that would make it unnecessary to do what you suggest.
I strongly disagree with that, and I simply do not understand your
position. In my perception, plugins are essentially loaded (dlopen-ed)
but
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> [I don't know if this discussion belongs to gcc@ or gcc-patches@ so I'm
> sending it on gcc@ since I don't propose or discuss any code yet]
>
> My understanding was that most plugins people are aware that somehow some
>
Hello All,
[I don't know if this discussion belongs to gcc@ or gcc-patches@ so I'm
sending it on gcc@ since I don't propose or discuss any code yet]
My understanding was that most plugins people are aware that somehow
some plugins would need to have static GTY-ed roots for the GGC machinery.
