On 02 Jul 2002 16:35:02 +0100 Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've done that for the register stacks, and I'll do the same for the
>other stacks unless somebody spots a flaw in my logic and points out
>that the GC will catch it...
No, your logic is correct, stacks are still
outside
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might want to modify register stacks too. I currently have a
> band-aid on it that just doesn't free stack chunks which works in
> all but the weirdest cases.
I've done that now. I also just realised that the st
At 06:59 PM 6/30/2002 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>of the ARM procedure call standard. The solution there is to always
>keep one chunk in reserve - when you move back out of a chunk you don't
>free it. Instead you wait until you move back another chunk and then
>free the chunk after the one that has
At 6:59 PM +0100 6/30/02, Tom Hughes wrote:
>There is a performance issue in the stack code, which the attached
>patch attempts to address.
[Snip]
>Some figures from my test programs, running on a K6-200 linux box. The
>test programs push and pop 65536 times with the first column being when
>tha
