I have to be quick, but just to keep things moving along...
(0) Leo writes
Whe we have:
set P0, 5
from this piece of code, we don't know, if we set the value of P0, or if
we set the value of the referenced object, where P0 points to. Only the
vtable knows, what we are assignin
Steve Fink wrote:
Many of our tinderbox failures result from architecture-specific
shortcomings in our current root set scanning code.
Here is a test result (i386/linux) *without* --gc-debug and without
trace_system_areas:
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
--
On Dec-31, Brent Dax wrote:
> Steve Fink:
> # How do you do this with longjmp? I could see chaining another
> # handler onto the longjmp context so that longjmp would
> # backtrack through all of these allocations, but that would
> # require allocating space for another context. And allocating
On Jan-01, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
>
> >Many of our tinderbox failures result from architecture-specific
> >shortcomings in our current root set scanning code.
>
>
> Here is a test result (i386/linux) *without* --gc-debug and without
> trace_system_areas:
> ...
>
> I know,
Steve Fink wrote:
On Jan-01, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I know, that things get worse with optimization and with more complex
programs.
And with other architectures that make heavier use of registers --
i386 may be an unrealistic example, since not much can even fit into
the available register
All~
> >>The clone functions could be redone like:
> >> Parrot_do_dod_run(); // get free headers if possible
> >> Parrot_block_DOD/GC();
> >> do_clone
> >> Parrot_unblock_DOD/GC
> >>This would also be faster, because there are no DOD runs during clone
> >>(which wouldn't yield more free header
On Dec-31, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
>
> >... So I decided to summarize the various approaches in
> >hopes that something will jump out at someone.
>
>
> Great document, thanks for all the work of summarizing this.
>
>
> > (2) point out what's wrong with my "variant 5: gener
On Jan-01, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
>
> >On Jan-01, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
>
> >>I know, that things get worse with optimization and with more complex
> >>programs.
>
> >And with other architectures that make heavier use of registers --
> >i386 may be an unrealistic example
Another (maybe silly) possibility suggested itself to me based on a
private mail re: infant mortality from Thomas Whateley: could we try
optimistic allocations?
Say we have a single memory backtracking jump buffer in the
interpreter. Then, before creating objects that cannot be easily
anchored to
To anyone out there who is thinking of a Grand Unified Infant
Mortality Solution, here's another thing that vastly complicates
things, and that we don't yet have a workable solution for yet: prompt
finalization.
my %x;
{ # start scope
my $timer1 = Timer->new();
my $timer2 = Timer->new(
10 matches
Mail list logo
