Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leo~
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:26:33 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And yes, I'm really thinking of inserting these A* nodes. Freezing an
>> object does need it. DOD of course not really.
> How is space going to be made for these? DOD
Leo~
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:26:33 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And yes, I'm really thinking of inserting these A* nodes. Freezing an
> object does need it. DOD of course not really.
How is space going to be made for these? DOD probably does not want
to allocate the dummy
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leo~
> Nice summary of the issues, but I have a few nits to pick
Thanks. I'll only look at DFS. It more cache-friendly.
> Thus I don't think that BFS works. Now lets consider DFS of both sets.
> A refs C,B; B refs D, E; C refs E; D refs G; E refs A
Leo~
Nice summary of the issues, but I have a few nits to pick
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:29:28 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) The mark phase of the garbage collection creates the graph of *all*
> life (reachable) objects[1].
> b) Freezing a PMC creates the graph of reacha
3) Incremental collection interfers badly with freeze & thaw, at least
if freeze uses the next_for_GC pointer to keep track of duplicates.
OTOH both freezing and creating the graph of live objects during DOD are
basically the same. The problem currently is that chaining objects
together is done
