[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Jameson beatgam...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||beatgam...@gmail.com

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #133 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-03-08 11:48:39 PST --- (In reply to comment #132) Did this actually get into 2.062? I don't think so. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ---

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Trass3r mrmoc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mrmoc...@gmx.de --- Comment

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #130 from Trass3r mrmoc...@gmx.de 2011-07-18 06:10:29 PDT --- (In reply to comment #126) Why not just add an additional garbage collector with this new implementation and leave the old one as it is and then developers can choose

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #131 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2011-07-18 08:54:57 PDT --- (In reply to comment #130) (In reply to comment #126) Why not just add an additional garbage collector with this new implementation and leave the old one

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@me.com --- Comment

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Sean Cavanaugh worksonmymach...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #88 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-04-14 02:06:33 PDT --- (In reply to comment #87) 1. distinguishing real pointers from might-be-a-pointer (such as you might get from union { int a; void* p; }). In C unions are not tagged,

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #89 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 02:23:28 PDT --- (In reply to comment #88) In order to support C compatibility, untagged unions must be supported by the type system and the GC. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #90 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-04-14 03:58:52 PDT --- (In reply to comment #89) (In reply to comment #88) In order to support C compatibility, untagged unions must be supported by the type system and the GC. Right, but

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #92 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 06:04:04 PDT --- (In reply to comment #91) Yes and no. Consider right now (although I think David fixed this), we allocate a bit for every 16 bytes of a page, even if the whole

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #93 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 06:21:29 PDT --- You can take a look at my concurrent D GC (CDGC), which is also precise. It is based on the work done by nfx...@gmail.com (which is based on the work done by

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #95 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 12:25:48 PDT --- (In reply to comment #94) I think that covers things, except for handling ambiguous pointers. Can you explain why we care about ambiguous pointers?

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #96 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 12:32:49 PDT --- (In reply to comment #95) (In reply to comment #94) I think that covers things, except for handling ambiguous pointers. Can you explain why we care

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #97 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-04-14 13:00:36 PDT --- (In reply to comment #96) (In reply to comment #95) (In reply to comment #94) I think that covers things, except for handling ambiguous

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #103 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-04-14 15:08:15 PDT --- (In reply to comment #102) (In reply to comment #100) (In reply to comment #99) (In reply to comment #98) The work on improving

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #104 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 15:47:25 PDT --- (In reply to comment #103) I was thinking that the compiler could generate D code that does the scanning instead of us defining a DSL for that. That's

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #105 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-04-14 16:00:24 PDT --- (In reply to comment #104) (In reply to comment #103) I was thinking that the compiler could generate D code that does the scanning instead

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #106 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 16:25:11 PDT --- (In reply to comment #105) I think it's just a simple idea. You do generate code for constructors etc. already... The main challenge would be finding

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #108 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 17:08:48 PDT --- (In reply to comment #107) Am I the only one who is concerned with the performance implications of complicating the garbage collector any further, especially

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #110 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-04-14 17:36:47 PDT --- (In reply to comment #109) (In reply to comment #108) That's why heap allocations in real-time code are a bad idea. This patch won't change that. Um, no, the

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #111 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 17:44:29 PDT --- (In reply to comment #110) Because currently the GC gets called when you allocate heap memory. Thanks for teaching me how garbage collectors work. I had no

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #112 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 17:48:22 PDT --- (In reply to comment #110) And allocating heap memory (for objects, structs, dynamic arrays, closures, array concatenations, etc) between two frames of

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #113 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 18:00:14 PDT --- (In reply to comment #112) Anything with hard realtime requirements cannot do allocation - even in C/C++, malloc() does not have an upper limit on its time.

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #114 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 18:23:13 PDT --- (In reply to comment #113) (In reply to comment #112) Anything with hard realtime requirements cannot do allocation - even in C/C++, malloc() does not

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #117 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 19:06:29 PDT --- (In reply to comment #116) Yes, they do. It's called the frame rate. (Though I'd guess to be technical, this a soft-realtime requirement.) That's exactly

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #118 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 19:34:40 PDT --- (In reply to comment #117) I hope it is as you say it is, but without benchmarks it's hard to say anything, and this talk of state machines etc. is

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #120 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 19:50:08 PDT --- (In reply to comment #118) I hope it is as you say it is, but without benchmarks it's hard to say anything, and this talk of state machines etc. is

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #121 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 19:59:28 PDT --- (In reply to comment #120) I understand the advantages of a moving GC - heap compaction allowing for an overall smaller managed heap etc., but I hope you

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||llu...@gmail.com

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #123 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 20:09:13 PDT --- (In reply to comment #121) Your case is a niche case and calls for a niche garbage collector implementation. I would like to ask you to reconsider that

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #124 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 20:26:14 PDT --- (In reply to comment #122) PS: Yeah, for some reason I still get the e-mails even when I removed myself from te Cc =/ Just when I thought I was out...

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #125 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 20:33:11 PDT --- (In reply to comment #120) I understand the advantages of a moving GC - heap compaction allowing for an overall smaller managed heap etc., but I hope

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #83 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-15 04:43:23 PST --- (In reply to comment #82) Anyway, unfortunately DMD development model still sucks, it sucks much less than... let's say 2 years ago, but... Walter is willing to slowly

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #84 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-11-15 04:47:48 PST --- (In reply to comment #83) (In reply to comment #82) Anyway, unfortunately DMD development model still sucks, it sucks much less than... let's say 2

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #85 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-15 09:33:56 PST --- (In reply to comment #84) I (and others) already suggested him how to improve things, Keep suggesting those things. Sometimes you have to say something five times to

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #86 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-11-15 09:44:18 PST --- (In reply to comment #85) (In reply to comment #84) I (and others) already suggested him how to improve things, Keep suggesting those things. Sometimes

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #81 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-11-14 18:06:05 PST --- I obsoleted all the patches because they were outdated (too old dmd/Tango versions). I don't think it's very efficient to make new patches and post them here (I mean, there are

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #82 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-11-14 19:17:59 PST --- Maybe you should try with LDC's or GDC's issues trackers, as this is an implementation detail maybe it gets better reception there (but it would be hard to get

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #80 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-09-16 11:26:43 PDT --- By the way, if the patch is going to be accepted, it would probably be good to get rid of the NO_SCAN flags. Instead, NO_SCAN should be detected by examining the PointerMap. A

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #77 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-09-15 02:22:03 PDT --- There's a small bug in the memory clearing in mallocNoSync(), that could cause memory leaks. Will post patch on request (nobody is using this anyway, right?). Also, I found out

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #78 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-09-15 05:51:08 PDT --- (In reply to comment #77) There's a small bug in the memory clearing in mallocNoSync(), that could cause memory leaks. Will post patch on request (nobody is

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #79 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-09-15 06:33:39 PDT --- Incremental patch: diff --git a/tango/core/rt/gc/basic/gcx.d b/tango/core/rt/gc/basic/gcx.d index 93c8078..0f049d7 100644 --- a/tango/core/rt/gc/basic/gcx.d +++

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #739 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #737 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #74 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-09-09 06:41:46 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=753) dmd: enable precise scanning for AAs AAs are special because they use some runtime mechanism. dmd didn't allow precise scanning because not all

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #75 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-09-09 06:43:43 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=754) tango: enable precise scanning for AAs This is the Tango patch that goes with the dmd patch (attachment 753). The AA implementation is duplicated

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #488 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #701 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #70 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-08-24 01:40:52 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=738) experiment: use ClassInfo to get bitmask for object allocations objbitmask.patch is a patch on top of tango_precise_gc.patch, which makes storing

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #700 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #68 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-08-15 07:24:36 PDT --- More analysis on wasted space (for the current GC and for the precise patch) here: http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/098ceae8 -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #67 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-08-08 08:10:19 PDT --- Sor(In reply to comment #66) http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/1490c03e That page shows me a spectacularly complex page of Python error messages.

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #61 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 12:23:01 PDT --- (In reply to comment #60) Created an attachment (id=701) [details] D1 - patch for Tango's runtime to enable precise GC scanning - lots of nasty

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #64 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 13:04:07 PDT --- (In reply to comment #62) (In reply to comment #61) Even when I agree that the GC needs a lot of refactoring, I don't think it's a good idea to include

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #57 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-27 21:19:01 PDT --- I think there is a not-so-important bug in the DMD patch, the bits.length value looks like it needs to be divided by size_t.sizeof (which is odd, since in the

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #58 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-27 21:23:34 PDT --- And another small comment about the Tango runtime patch, you add a binSize() function, but there is already a binsize[] array for the same purpose, you can

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #698 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #48 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-25 17:04:56 PDT --- Well timings for dil are much worse :( This is dil generating the Tango docs, without precise scanning (dmd with the last patch, Tango unpatched): 52.01 53.73

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #50 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-25 17:30:20 PDT --- (In reply to comment #48) It looks like findPool() might be used much more often than before? For example, I noticed the mixin code calls findPool() very

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #45 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 20:08:30 PDT --- Well, I've made a little benchmark for the patch. I'm using the voronoi[1] benchmark, since I think is a good GC benchmark, because it exercises the GC a lot,

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #43 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-23 11:39:19 PDT --- You're right, there seem to be some places where the bitmask size is added or substracted twice. I don't really know; I took that code over from dsimcha's patch without

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #44 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-23 12:15:44 PDT --- (In reply to comment #43) You're right, there seem to be some places where the bitmask size is added or substracted twice. I don't really know; I took that

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #37 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-22 17:54:38 PDT --- BTW, I just realized that this type information scheme doesn't enable the GC to move data around (i.e. it doesn't open the door to moving collectors) since the

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #38 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-22 19:26:36 PDT --- If I'm understanding the patch right, I think I found a bug. At the end of reallocNoSync(): +if (psize size || // if new size is

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #31 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-21 08:38:06 PDT --- (In reply to comment #30) Hm... I'd love to get this into D2, but the diffs are a bit large to apply by hand. I don't suppose you'd be inclined to provide a

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #689 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #34 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-21 11:57:02 PDT --- I don't really use D2 (all my code is in D1). Porting it to D2 will require dealing with the recently added array append stuff. Not sure how hard that would be, but currently I

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #35 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-21 11:59:40 PDT --- (In reply to comment #34) I don't really use D2 (all my code is in D1). Porting it to D2 will require dealing with the recently added array append stuff. Not

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #36 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-21 12:05:08 PDT --- I guess we will have to see how Walter's 64 bit port will look like. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #27 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-20 19:33:05 PDT --- I'm trying to test this patch but I'm having some problems compiling Tango (I'm using 0.99.9, not trunk). With the patched DMD, I get this error: dmd:

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #28 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-20 19:51:19 PDT --- Some extra info: (gdb) up #5 0x004679d4 in VarDeclaration::fillPointerMap (this=0x1130700, pm=0x7fff15974fc0, a_offset=0) at declaration.c:1379 1379

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #26 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-18 14:20:24 PDT --- @Sean Kelly: you said something about different ways of storing the mask. Do you have any more concrete suggestions? -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #25 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-04 08:05:15 PDT --- (In reply to comment #23) I just voted for it. It would be great if you could define some benchmarks by which you assess the improvements your approach is

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #21 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-02 05:41:22 PDT --- I care! But I guess that if I'm the only one you are wasting your time :) I'd suggest to bring it up in the DMD (or even druntime, but I guess that one is

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandf...@jhu.edu ---

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #24 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2010-07-02 18:29:07 PDT --- I'm thoroughly impressed. Now that someone wrote a better patch than I did, with some of the plumbing issues resolved, I wish I could just use all 10 votes on it.

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #13 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-06-27 14:07:33 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=680) D1 - patch for dmd for creating pointer bitmasks -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #14 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-06-27 14:08:34 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=681) D1 - patch for Tango's runtime to enable precise GC scanning -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #15 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-06-27 14:21:58 PDT --- I posted two patches to enable precise GC heap scanning under D1/Tango. All user programs will make use of the precise scanning; no modifications required. The dmd patch makes

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #680 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #17 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-06-27 14:49:50 PDT --- PS: I forgot to handle TypeInfo_Typedef. Apply this change in object_.d: @@ -370,6 +370,7 @@ class TypeInfo_Typedef : TypeInfo override TypeInfo next() { return base; }

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #12 from Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org 2010-06-08 12:22:20 PDT --- Yeah, the patch doesn't work any more. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nfx...@gmail.com --- Comment #11

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #7 from Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org 2009-11-03 07:52:44 PST --- Nice work! It may be preferable to store the pointer elsewhere however. I believe all blocks returned by the allocator must be 16 byte-aligned, so tacking a

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #8 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2009-11-03 08:06:43 PST --- (In reply to comment #7) Nice work! It may be preferable to store the pointer elsewhere however. I believe all blocks returned by the allocator must be 16

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ---

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #1 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2009-11-01 10:46:03 PST --- Created an attachment (id=488) Templates to generate bit masks, documentation of format. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #487 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||llu...@gmail.com

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #4 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2009-11-01 11:49:58 PST --- 1. I chose to store the bitmask after SENTINEL_POST so that none of the assumptions of the sentinel code (such as that the sentinel is immediately after the data)

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #5 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2009-11-01 12:31:57 PST --- (In reply to comment #4) 1. I chose to store the bitmask after SENTINEL_POST so that none of the assumptions of the sentinel code (such as that the sentinel

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #6 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2009-11-01 12:36:22 PST --- 3. The mixin is because I needed a lot of the same logic in realloc() and extend() and it was complicated enough that I felt it was the lesser of two evils to