Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ a slightly modified version of this proposal made it into CVS in the
meantime ]
> At 10:54 AM +0200 8/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>
>> DOD_WRITE_BARRIER(interp, aggregate, old_item, new_item)
>>
>>For hash keys we might need either two such calls (
At 5:24 PM +0200 8/26/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ a slightly modified version of this proposal made it into CVS in the
meantime ]
At 10:54 AM +0200 8/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
DOD_WRITE_BARRIER(interp, aggregate, old_item, new_item)
For hash keys w
At 10:54 AM +0200 8/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, being clear here (I hope, though recent history suggests
otherwise) what I want is the API that the GC/DOD system presents to
the rest of the engine. This includes the functions you call to
trigger a D
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, being clear here (I hope, though recent history suggests
> otherwise) what I want is the API that the GC/DOD system presents to
> the rest of the engine. This includes the functions you call to
> trigger a DOD or GC sweep, any functions or macros that
At 10:35 PM +0200 8/20/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
As part of the DOD/GC rework, we need to have a clean,
well-documented API for the garbage collector. Things were clean,
though not documented, for the original DOD and things have gotten
significantly messier since.
First is
Dan Sugalski wrote:
As part of the DOD/GC rework, we need to have a clean, well-documented
API for the garbage collector. Things were clean, though not documented,
for the original DOD and things have gotten significantly messier since.
First is of course one of the goals of these changes. Second
