chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 24 February 2008 18:41:23 Bob Rogers wrote:
Granted, and it's tough to make a PMC truly read-only until after it's
completely initialized . . .
There's a similar problem for accessors and setters. Again, that's
solveable with more code or more cleverness.
So,
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:13:50 -0800
On Sunday 24 February 2008 18:41:23 Bob Rogers wrote:
> Granted, and it's tough to make a PMC truly read-only until after it's
> completely initialized . . .
>
>There's a similar problem for accesso
On Sunday 24 February 2008 18:41:23 Bob Rogers wrote:
> Granted, and it's tough to make a PMC truly read-only until after it's
> completely initialized . . .
>
>There's a similar problem for accessors and setters. Again, that's
>solveable with more code or more cleverness.
>
> So, you're
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:22:19 -0800
On Sunday 24 February 2008 16:55:48 Bob Rogers wrote:
> Why do constant PMCs ever need to point to non-constant ones? In other
> words, why are those pointed-to PObjs not also constant?
The reason is pra
On Sunday 24 February 2008 16:55:48 Bob Rogers wrote:
>Some of our memory problems seem to be strange interactions between
>PObjs allocated out of constant pools, garbage collection, and
>freezing/thawing PBC (not to mention the interaction of HLLs).
>
> Amen! -- particularly the "stra
On Sunday 24 February 2008 07:33:30 Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 24. Februar 2008 10:55 schrieb chromatic:
> > PMCs that *do* need a special mark() are troublesome; they may contain
> > pointers to non-constant PObjs that *do* need live marking, lest they get
> > swept away during the sec
Am Sonntag, 24. Februar 2008 10:55 schrieb chromatic:
> PMCs that *do* need a special mark() are troublesome; they may contain
> pointers to non-constant PObjs that *do* need live marking, lest they get
> swept away during the second half of GC. If these constant PObjs don't get
> marked, there's
