On 07/13/2012 02:47 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote:
> And I don't want to bikeshed on stuff if it is not important, but
> 'Rooted' still sounds weird to me. It sounds like a name that
> would be used in a parameter to indicate that something is rooted
> (but we call that Handle, which is fine, and better)
On Friday, July 13, 2012 1:41:00 PM UTC-7, Dave Mandelin wrote:
> Bill sent this out, but it seems not to have reached the newsgroup, so
> pasting it here. (By the way, to avoid such things, I just post through
> groups.google.com.)
>
> So Bill said:
>
> I didn't respond to Dave's email right a
On 07/13/2012 12:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Because many objects (most in popular workloads for which V8's nursery
> collection
> wins) are short-lived and by definition won't be moved, so they should not be
> taxed by an optional private-keyed identity property.
>
> Don't walk into known perfo
Bill sent this out, but it seems not to have reached the newsgroup, so pasting
it here. (By the way, to avoid such things, I just post through
groups.google.com.)
So Bill said:
I didn't respond to Dave's email right away because I wasn't sure how
I felt, and I had a lot of questions about how r
On Fri 13 Jul 2012 12:37:10 PM PDT, Brian Hackett wrote:
> Forwarding to the list, this got bounced by @googlegroups address (grumble)
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Brian Hackett"
>> To: "Steve Fink"
>> Cc: "mozilla dev tech js-engine internals"
>> ,
>> tc...@mozilla.com, bi...@mozi
Brian Hackett wrote:
I'm pretty confused by the hashtable talk. We can already rekey
> hashtables in which GC thing pointers are used as keys, and the GC
> will already be traversing these tables in order to do its job. So
> isn't this just an issue of auditing our hashtables and making sure
Forwarding to the list, this got bounced by @googlegroups address (grumble)
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Hackett"
> To: "Steve Fink"
> Cc: "mozilla dev tech js-engine internals"
> ,
> tc...@mozilla.com, bi...@mozilla.com, "Dave Mandelin"
> , "Bill McCloskey"
>
> Sent: Friday, J
Jeff Walden wrote:
On 07/13/2012 11:28 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Steve Fink wrote:
Another hole is when we use the pointer value to compute a hash code,
which we unfortunately do pretty often. For JSObjects, at least, it
would be really nice if we had an identity value to use instead.
dmandelin a
On 07/13/2012 11:28 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
>> Another hole is when we use the pointer value to compute a hash code,
>> which we unfortunately do pretty often. For JSObjects, at least, it
>> would be really nice if we had an identity value to use instead.
>> dmandelin and I talk
Steve Fink wrote:
Another hole is when we use the pointer value to compute a hash code,
which we unfortunately do pretty often. For JSObjects, at least, it
would be really nice if we had an identity value to use instead.
dmandelin and I talked about this, and initially I assumed this would
requir
(apologies if you receive this twice; trying to fix 2 sending failures)
My current leaning:
- Use the current scheme of Rooted, MutableHandle, and Handle
- Add in an Unrooted
- Eliminate pretty much all bare pointers from the engine (except in
some of the GC code)
- Convert all member functio
- Original Message -
> The shell is already adapted for a moving GC, it's worked in the past
> and the only problem is it keeps breaking because there is still no
> tbpl coverage to catch such breakage. That doesn't mean zero bugs,
> just that it passes with our current tests. Once tests
I still have some concerns about our approach for adapting to moving GC. From
the meeting notes, I see that there are some open concerns about maintaining
proper handle usage outside the JS engine (and I'm not sure how easy it's going
to be inside the engine for that matter) and more worrying ev
13 matches
Mail list logo
