[Sorry this has taken so long (as has the rest of my replies to the list).
Between work and the LL1 workshop it's been busy]
At 11:59 PM 11/12/2001 -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
>1)
>Are we allowing _any_ dynamic memory to be non-GC-managed?
Yes. We'll have the case where some memory must be p
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 06:05:51PM -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
> treat them separately. We're already having to treat handles differently
> than buffer-objects. I'm also wanting to segregate lists of leaf-buffers,
Ok here is a reference to the thread that mentioned copy-on-write for shar
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 06:37 pm, James Mastros wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 06:14:30PM -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
> > Extending mem-mngr data-structures (like the linked-list) to the
> > definition of a PMC is what I'm worried about; not exposing a function to
> > say GC-me-more-ofte
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 06:14:30PM -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
> Extending mem-mngr data-structures (like the linked-list) to the
> definition of a PMC is what I'm worried about; not exposing a function to
> say GC-me-more-often. (I appologize for the LISP mneumonic :)
Hm. I think that the pr
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 03:57 pm, James Mastros wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this would require hooks into the mem-mngr module, which
> > violates it's black-box nature. Not to mention the points you make.
>
> I don't really see this as ownerous fiddiling with the memory manager; we
> want to ha
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 01:20 pm, Jason Gloudon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:59:08PM -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
> > 2)
> > Can we assume that a "buffer object" is ONLY accessible by a single
> > reverse-path-to-PMC? PMC's or array-buffers can point to other PMC's, so
> > it's poss
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:51:26PM -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
> The various texts I'm reading suggest that memory management should be a
> black-box module.
Naturaly. All texts will suggest that everything should be a black-box
module, it's where engineering has been going for the past N^
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 12:05 pm, Ken Fox wrote:
> > Are _all_ handles (PMC's, Strings, or whatever) that serve as
> > root-set elements dynamically allocated?
>
> Nope. Part of the root set includes auto C PMC handles used by
> extensions. You also have to think about hardware registers too
>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:59:08PM -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
> 2)
> Can we assume that a "buffer object" is ONLY accessible by a single
> reverse-path-to-PMC? PMC's or array-buffers can point to other PMC's, so
> it's possible to have multiple paths from the root to an object, but I'm
>
Michael L Maraist wrote:
> Are we allowing _any_ dynamic memory to be non-GC-managed?
Parrot must allow third party libraries to use the standard system
malloc/free. Playing linker games to hide malloc/free gets *really*
ugly.
> Can we assume that a "buffer object" is ONLY accessible by a single
10 matches
Mail list logo
