Let me answer for Artem :), he is on vacation and most probably won't answer soon. We do occasionally use GCv4 to verify some threading issues, since native threading resource allocation depends on "weak references". Thus I would agree with Ivan, that sometimes it is helpful to switch to different code base(which is handy and considered to be stable enough), but if gcv4 won't be supported any more why don't drop it having in mind that one can always take older revisions from SVN.
+1 for dropping GCv4 Nik. On 11/2/06, Ivan Volosyuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to know the opinion of Artem, Salikh and Alexey Ignatenko. They have used the GC and may have reasons to keep it. As for me, I occasionally use it (GCv4) and a modified version of GCv4.1 (which can help detect heap access via lost pointers). Most of the time I prefer second one, but sometimes it is helpful to run with completely different code base. I didn't try GCv5 yet. If it stable I will switch to it. -- Ivan On 11/2/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any reason to keep this around in the main branch?
