On 12/6/13 10:12 AM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
I am not especially happy with these two changes. They feel hokey and
special purpose. I guess the best sol'n depends on the degree of static
safety we want. Without something like the `'return` lifetime, I'm not
sure how we can guarantee that `Root` valu
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 09:27:03AM -0800, Patrick Walton wrote:
> This is great stuff, thanks. Have you given thought to how the
> rooting API would work? That's one of the last major pieces to making
> the Servo DOM type- and memory-safe.
Just to summarize what you and I talked about on IRC for t
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:17:40AM -0800, Patrick Walton wrote:
> Wouldn't these data structures be instead traced by the JS GC? ISTM
> if you are putting roots in a data structure it is best to make the
> data structure itself traced.
This is not necessarily the case -- creating a new kind of GCT
Devirtualization isn't necessary if we use unboxed closures.
Patrick
Niko Matsakis wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:17:40AM -0800, Patrick Walton wrote:
>> Wouldn't these data structures be instead traced by the JS GC? ISTM
>> if you are putting roots in a data structure it is best to make the
On 12/6/13 2:59 PM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
This is not necessarily the case -- creating a new kind of GCThing is
rather hard, and wrapping in an object is heavyweight compared to
allocating a data structure on the stack.
Data structures on the stack should be traced with a CustomAutoRooter,
in m
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 12:51:26PM -0800, Patrick Walton wrote:
> Devirtualization isn't necessary if we use unboxed closures.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Interesting.
Niko
___
dev-servo mailing list
dev-servo@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mo
6 matches
Mail list logo
