http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463
--- Comment #64 from Leandro Lucarella <llu...@gmail.com> 2010-07-28 13:04:07 PDT --- (In reply to comment #62) > (In reply to comment #61) > > Even when I agree that the GC needs a lot of refactoring, I don't think > > it's a > > good idea to include it in this patch, it makes much harder to understand it > > and it might introduce some subtle bugs that will be very hard to track > > down in > > so many changes. > > I have to agree, but I did these changes in order to make storing a bitmask > configurable, and to properly support SENTINEL. The changes the original patch > did weren't very small either. > > I see 4 options: > 1. keep this anyway > 2. keep the old gcx.d around and apply the changes to a new incarnation of > gcx.d, and let the user choose the GC implementation at startup or compile > time > 3. only accept the compiler patch, and wait for Leandro's new GC > 4. revert to the previous version of my patch (of course I wouldn't like this > at all) > > Which is it? I think this should be replied by whoever have the authority to merge the patches, my comments were just wishes (and you made them true in a much higher proportion that I was expecting :). I'd say 1 is OK. About my GC, is a research work and, even when my goal is something realistic and I'm doing performance tests all the time, don't expect much. :) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
