On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:15 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 01:00:24PM +0300, Nikolay Ananiev wrote: > >> Today I saw Andrew's last post in his blog about the end of gsoc. >> Since I could not find much information about the NCI and GC projects I'm >> asking here: What's the status of these projects? >> Andrew's last post seems discouraging. How much of the new GC is completed? > > It's just about functionally complete, but there are a couple of > difficult-to-debug bugs remaining. I figured out one of them the other day, > but as with most new GC problems, it'll take a while to find and fix. > >> Are we going to have a new GC this year? > > Yes. > >> What are the main problems that remain and have to be solved? > > The overall concepts of the incremental GC are solid, but a couple of details > of the implementation need polishing. It's difficult to debug these types of > problems, and even more difficult to estimate them. (In particular, > interleaving GC headers and GC'd elements leads to some troublesome offset > manipulation.) > > It's not clear what the best approach to merging is; I should have encouraged > Andrew to work in smaller steps, such that he could run all of the tests after > each change and expect that they'd all pass. > > -- c >
You can always try to identify the chunks ex post facto and start the merge back a chunk at a time; not as easy as identifying the bits ahead of time, but doable. If it's *close* (and mostly passing tests) we can always throw it back into trunk immediately after a monthly release and give ourselves 4 weeks to clean it up. -- Will "Coke" Coleda
