On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 18:20:16 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
I'm not sure if the current collector scans all registers, or
just scans the stack?
According to the docs it scans all registers, but even then one
must be careful and do addRoot before the pointer is set,
otherwise
On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 19:17:38 UTC, Daniel Kozak
wrote:
No, collection could not occure if we speaking about current D
GC
implementation. So it safe to set pointer before addRoot.
It can be triggered by another thread.
Wrong:
ptr = somestack.pop();
someglobalptr = ptr;
// ptr
On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 19:25:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 19:17:38 UTC, Daniel Kozak
wrote:
No, collection could not occure if we speaking about current D
GC
implementation. So it safe to set pointer before addRoot.
It can be triggered
On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 17:56:23 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
Yes, good point. One should keep root ranges small too.
If we carefully use addRoot() and addRange() for data directly
pointing to GC heap I think we don't need to let GC scan
everything that can lead to this data. This is
On Friday, 18 September 2015 at 19:26:27 UTC, Rory wrote:
The new GC in Go 1.5 seems interesting. What they say about is
certainly interesting.
http://blog.golang.org/go15gc
Go 1.6 GC roadmap:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kBx98ulj5V5M9Zdeamy7v6ofZXX3yPziAf0V27A64Mo/preview
On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 08:36:51 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
full heap every time. And that leads to different usage pattern
where GC heap should remain small and GC allocation rate low.
Please, let's stop pretending you only have to scan the GC heap.
You have to scan all pointers that
On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 14:12:10 UTC, Rory McGuire
wrote:
The impression I got reading the article was that their GC was
very much like our current one except that the marking part of
the algorithm was run concurrently.
It is quite different. As mentioned they also protect writes to
On Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 21:44:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/22jwcu/how_i_came_to_write_d/
Thanks, this was a fun read! :-)
On Friday, 11 April 2014 at 07:26:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I just don't see how it could *possibly* make any sense to NOT
do it this way.
Tar is a tape archiver, for backups. So it makes sense. E.g.
Backing up whole disks, piping from find to tar etc.
It makes sense, but it is
On Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 11:26:41 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Having special syntax for everything makes the language
unusable.
While there are ways to reach excesses in every design
direction, and make things unusable, the risk discussed here
seems remote to me.
Too much
On Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 19:53:43 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
A counterexample is Go, which has gotten a lot of traction
with a simple
syntax.
It has more to do with Google than with the language's design.
That, and being perceived as a http-server-language and having
standard libraries and
On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 06:49:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Please join me in congratulating David!
*envious*
301 - 312 of 312 matches
Mail list logo
