Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Daniel showed how this can fail for objects with internal pointers.
This includes __gnu_cxx::__vstring, which is likely to be the default
std::string class in libstdc++ 7, so this is not an unlikely occurrence.
The C++ standard limits the compiler's ability to
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:16:42PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Daniel showed how this can fail for objects with internal pointers.
This includes __gnu_cxx::__vstring, which is likely to be the default
std::string class in libstdc++ 7, so this is not an unlikely
Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:16:42PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
The C++ standard limits the compiler's ability to introduce copies. It
says Here are where copies occur; some of these can be optimized away.
It doesn't say anything about inserting more copies. So, depending
Michael Veksler mveks...@techunix.technion.ac.il writes:
In this case, how is it possible to copy the objects? Will things just
crash at run-time?
Although people have been discussing copying the objects, I should point
out that my original proposal suggests not copying. Instead the code
can
comments below,
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:05 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous segments, thus
permitting many more
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Joel Sherrill joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous segments, thus
Mathieu Lacage wrote:
It would be totally awesome to do this if you could provide an option to
delegate to a user-provided function the allocation and deallocation of
the stack blobs needed by threads.
Ideally, I would even be able to use heap memory for that stack space if
I wanted to.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:10:10AM +0100, Mathieu Lacage wrote:
- if you want to use the stack protector and split stacks, it should
be fairly trivial to extend the data structure which contains the stack
protector with a new field, no ?
The stack protector is just a word, not a pointer.
Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org writes:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous segments, thus
permitting many
Mathieu Lacage mathieu.lac...@sophia.inria.fr writes:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:05 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
It would be totally awesome to do this if you could provide an option to
delegate to a user-provided function the allocation and deallocation of
the stack blobs needed by threads.
Yes, this would be a goal.
The main reason I
Mathieu Lacage mathieu.lac...@sophia.inria.fr writes:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
It would be totally awesome to do this if you could provide an option to
delegate to a user-provided function the allocation and deallocation of
the stack blobs needed by
This effort is relevant:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/jcondit/capriccio-sosp-2003.pdf
John Regehr
John Regehr reg...@cs.utah.edu writes:
This effort is relevant:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/jcondit/capriccio-sosp-2003.pdf
Yes. Unfortunately, their analysis which lets them avoid testing at the
entry to each function requires a complete call graph, which is not
something
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous segments, thus
permitting many more threads to be active at one time without worrying
about stack overflow or about
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous segments, thus
permitting many more threads to be active at one time without worrying
about
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
I've put a project proposal for split stacks on the wiki at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks . The idea is to permit the stack
of a single thread to be split into discontiguous segments, thus
permitting many more threads to be active at one time
17 matches
Mail list logo
