On 7/1/2013 6:08 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 3:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/2013 7:36 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> I think that's a tall order presently. For instance, on linux, the threads
are all stopped using a signal. It's a very bad idea to run destructors in a
signal handler.
>>>
>>> What it seems like you are saying is that a prerequisite for ref counting
is to have thread-local GC working. If that is the case, we need to start a
thread-local GC "thread" before this goes any further.
>> Not really. This doesn't make anything worse. Also, the proposed solution to
this issue is to post the "destruct" list to the appropriate thread, and that
thread runs it next time it calls the GC.
> I really urge you to make this a separate project. It's not trivial.
Logically, it's sound, but the implementation will be very difficult. I also
think Sean (and probably others) should be involved for that discussion.
Make what a separate project? The destruction of objects by the GC in local
threads? It already is not part of the ref counting proposal.
