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
There is a performance issue in the stack code, which the attached
patch attempts to address.
The problem revolves around what happens when you are close to the
boundary between two chunks. When this happens you can find that you
are in a loop where something is pushed on the stack, causing a new
