[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC
d-bugmail at puremagic.com
d-bugmail at puremagic.com
Sun Nov 1 12:31:59 PST 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463
--- Comment #5 from Leandro Lucarella <llucax at gmail.com> 2009-11-01 12:31:57 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> 1. I chose to store the bitmask after SENTINEL_POST so that none of the
> assumptions of the sentinel code (such as that the sentinel is immediately
> after the data) changes.
Seems reasonable, the SENTINEL version is not very used anyway.
> 2. The fact that setBitMask() is a nested function is a minor holdover from
> when the design was a little different. If anyone really hates it a lot, it
> can be refactored.
I agree is not terrible, but since it's a pretty trivial change I guess it
could be nice to remove it, to improve readability (I don't think is a
performance problem, readability and complexity is my only concern). If you
don't feel like changing it yourself I can upload an amended patch.
> 3. The mixin is because I needed a lot of the same logic in realloc() and
> extend() and it was complicated enough that I felt it was the lesser of two
> evils to use a mixin, even with the "variables appearing out of nowhere" magic,
> rather than duplicate that logic.
Sure, duplicating code is never a good idea. The question is, why it can't be
done with a plain-old function?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
More information about the Digitalmars-d-bugs
mailing list