Michael L Maraist:
# On Sunday 04 November 2001 02:39 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
# > At 08:32 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
# > > > There will be a mechanism to register PMCs with the
# interpreter to note
# > > > they're pointed to by something that the interpreter
# can't reach. (For
#
On Sunday 04 November 2001 02:39 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 08:32 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > > There will be a mechanism to register PMCs with the interpreter to note
> > > they're pointed to by something that the interpreter can't reach. (For
> > > example, a structure in you
>At 09:36 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
>
>> > While the PMC structures themselves don't move (no real need--there of
>> > fixed size so you can't fragment your allocation pool, though it makes
>>Sorry can you expand on this. I don't see the relation between the data
>>being fixed siz
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Michael L Maraist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 10:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Rules for memory allocation and pointing
>
>
>On Sunday 04 November 2001 03:36 pm, Be
On Sunday 04 November 2001 03:36 pm, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > While the PMC structures themselves don't move (no real need--there of
> > fixed size so you can't fragment your allocation pool, though it makes
>
> Sorry can you expand on this. I don't see the relation between the data
> being fixe
At 09:36 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > While the PMC structures themselves don't move (no real need--there of
> > fixed size so you can't fragment your allocation pool, though it makes
>Sorry can you expand on this. I don't see the relation between the data
>being fixed size and
> While the PMC structures themselves don't move (no real need--there of
> fixed size so you can't fragment your allocation pool, though it makes
Sorry can you expand on this. I don't see the relation between the data
being fixed size and the memory not becomming fragmented.
> generational colle
At 08:32 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > There will be a mechanism to register PMCs with the interpreter to note
> > they're pointed to by something that the interpreter can't reach. (For
> > example, a structure in your extension code, or via a pointer stashed in
> > the depths of
> There will be a mechanism to register PMCs with the interpreter to note
> they're pointed to by something that the interpreter can't reach. (For
> example, a structure in your extension code, or via a pointer stashed in
> the depths of a buffer object, or referenced by another interpreter) This
At 03:19 AM 11/3/2001 -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
>On Friday 02 November 2001 05:27 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>I hope rellocation can be handled efficiently. I have these images in my
>head of multiple references to the same memory structure.. Relocating would
>involve finding each and every re
On Friday 02 November 2001 05:27 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> 1) The pointer in a PMC structure may point to:
>
>*) Another PMC
>*) A buffer object
>*) Something non-tracked
>
> Additionally the buffer object may contain array of buffer object pointers,
> or an array of PMC pointers. Flag
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> 2) A buffer object has the structure:
DS> struct {
DS>void *memory;
DS>INTVAL size;
DS> }
some questions.
i am declaring a BIGNUM struct which points to an array of BIGNUM_WORDs
(longest native integer
12 matches
Mail list logo
