On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 12:12:41PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 5:38 PM +0200 5/10/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
> >The result is that the last header of a COWed string will still believe that
> >the buffer is shared until a GC collection run occurs, and therefore could
> >result in buffers being copi
At 5:38 PM +0200 5/10/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
>The result is that the last header of a COWed string will still believe that
>the buffer is shared until a GC collection run occurs, and therefore could
>result in buffers being copied unnecessarily. Your system eliminates this
>problem; however, I bel
Hi Nicholas
The final design is now waiting on Dan, but it is always interesting to see
other ideas.
Like you, I rejected the parent/child technique. However, my proposed
solution did not use any links at all, because it relies on the garbage
collection system to determine when a shared buffer h
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually, we don't. (Sez the man catching up on altogether too much
> mail) Since we're putting the COW stuff at the tail end, substrings
> of COW strings are fine. You set the bufstart to where the substring
> starts, buflen
At 10:58 AM +0200 5/6/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
>The COWing of substrings requires a major interface change:
>*** All references to the data in a STRING must use the new strstart pointer
>instead of bufstart ***
Actually, we don't. (Sez the man catching up on altogether too much
mail) Since we're p
Although the tidying up of resources.c is not complete yet, I decided to
implement COW strings anyway.
This implementation handles the following:
Copied strings and substrings are COWed instead of copied (i.e. new string
header only); this applies to normal and constant strings.
Functions that al
