Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

(Previous discussion continued)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (04 Jan 2004 18:09 UTC)
Re: no constants please felix (04 Jan 2004 19:28 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (04 Jan 2004 20:06 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (04 Jan 2004 21:39 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (04 Jan 2004 22:09 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (04 Jan 2004 22:58 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:16 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:45 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 11:40 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 16:51 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 17:48 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 18:50 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (05 Jan 2004 18:48 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 22:26 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (06 Jan 2004 07:42 UTC)
I don't believe in "(may GC)" Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:21 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 12:06 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Shiro Kawai (05 Jan 2004 12:45 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" bear (05 Jan 2004 18:16 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 17:00 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" bear (05 Jan 2004 17:53 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 01:39 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Michael Sperber (06 Jan 2004 07:39 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:31 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:38 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 12:16 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 18:05 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (05 Jan 2004 19:03 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 01:37 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (06 Jan 2004 02:14 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (06 Jan 2004 02:55 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 02:31 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (06 Jan 2004 03:09 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 03:14 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (06 Jan 2004 04:32 UTC)

Re: no constants please Michael Sperber 06 Jan 2004 07:42 UTC

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> writes:

>> From: Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>

Tom> If the root set is large, certainly it should be traced in several
Tom> steps, using barriers to preserve its invariants.

>> Is there a practical example of a system that does this?  It seems
>> very difficult to do, even absent an FFI to C, as your typical root
>> set---the current continuation---changes *all the time*.  (I'm really
>> curious.  I could never wrap my mind around this.)

Tom> You can treat the "big-three abstract registers" (continuation, code,
Tom> and environment) specially.   They have usefully limited usage
Tom> patterns.   It's the other roots, if your implementation has them,
Tom> that are of greater interest.  (The draft FFI creates "other roots".)

That isn't the question I asked.  All hard questions are buried behind
"specially."

Tom> If you want to have a chat about incremental GC strategies, please
Tom> c'mon over to the xxxxxx@non-gnu.org mailing list:

It seems the GC list would be the right place to discuss this.

Tom> Not all incremental collectors are incompatible with the FFI (a mostly
Tom> copying semi-conservative incremental GC would be one example).

This was actually a precise non-copying incremental GC.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla