Garbage collector memory leak "feature"?

Bill Baxter dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com
Thu Oct 11 07:07:06 PDT 2007


Frits van Bommel wrote:
> Frits van Bommel wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:44:04 +0300, Frits van Bommel 
>>>> <fvbommel at remwovexcapss.nl> wrote:
>> [apparently snipped by Bill]
>>>>
>>>> The question is, however: is conservative scanning of the stack that 
>>>> bad? IMO, it's much less problematic just to tell the user to store 
>>>> large amounts of pseudo-random/pointer-like data in the heap or in 
>>>> static arrays (data segment).
>>>
>>> My thinking exactly.  Seems like figuring out how to get classes and 
>>> structs with pointers to not scan as all pointers is where the bigger 
>>> payoff lies.  Stacks don't usually contain much pointer-like random 
>>> data I wouldn't think.
> 
> For got to mention: I do agree that the heap should be considered a 
> priority. I just think that after that, the stack is the next logical 
> target[1].

Agreed.  There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to make the stack a 
safe place for random data.  But it's smaller than the heap, and 
generally has short-lived data, among other things.  So it's not as big 
a threat.

--bb




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list