Precise GC

[Manu]

On 10 April 2012 00:06, deadalnix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 09/04/2012 20:33, Manu a écrit :
>
>  Eh?
>> Not sure what you mean. The idea is the template would produce a
>> struct/table of data instead of being a pointer to a function, this way
>> the GC could work without calling anything. If the GC was written to
>> assume GC info in a particular format/structure, it could be written
>> without any calls.
>> I'm just saying to leave that as a possibility, and not REQUIRE an
>> indirect function call for every single allocation in the system. Some
>> GC might be able to make better use of that sort of setup.
>>
>
> If you have reference to objects, you can't avoid a function call. If you
> have something you know at compile time, the generated function can
> directly call the other function that mark the pointed data (or even can do
> it itself, if you don't fear code bloat) without going back to the GC and
> its indirect call.
>
> So it make no difference in the number of indirect calls you have, but the
> struct proposal is a stronger constraint on the GC that the function one.
>
> BTW, starting you answer by « Not sure what you mean. » should have been a
> red flag.
>

It is, and I still don't follow. I can't imagine there are any indirect
function calls, except for the ones introduced by this proposal, where you
may register a function to mark the pointers in complex structs.
You seem to be suggesting that another one already exists anyway? Where is
it? Why is it there?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120410/652fc57c/attachment.html>