On 07 May 2006 21:36, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:26:20PM +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
>> - Cygwin's mmap() is still buggy. There was a lot of work on it
>> previously, the last message I could find on the subject was
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-06/msg005
It seems fine to me. One note for copying collection; I don't know
that you need to solve the local variables problem. What I did during
development was support both copying and non-copying collection;
there's at least one suitable point (probably more - I did not look
very hard) for copying.
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:52:46AM +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> >Now I'm off to write proposal for Google.
>
> Application draft can be found at
> http://www.cs.aau.dk/~lauras/application.txt
> I haven't submitted it yet, so I can incorporate some corrections, if
> you have any comments.
It
Now I'm off to write proposal for Google.
Application draft can be found at http://www.cs.aau.dk/~lauras/application.txt
I haven't submitted it yet, so I can incorporate some corrections, if
you have any comments.
Thanks,
--
Laurynas
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:50:54PM +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> >I suspect Cygwin is blameless here. The runtime page size detection
> >would probably work better (but it's slower).
>
> How much would be slower that, if it needs to be executed once per
> invocation? Looks like it's the way t
Or just use 64K pages on Cygwin. It sounds like that's what's going
on. We may be fetching the page size incorrectly from the system.
In fact, see how bogus the code currently in ggc-zone.c is for the page
size?
Yes...
I suspect Cygwin is blameless here. The runtime page size detection
woul
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:26:20PM +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> - Cygwin's mmap() is still buggy. There was a lot of work on it
> previously, the last message I could find on the subject was
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-06/msg00521.html . It
> suggested, that Cygwin's mmap() maybe
2006/5/4, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In the long run, I don't think we really want to be using garbage
collection at all.
[...]
All of the above should not in way be read as an argument against using
the zone collector -- it's actually an argument in favor of improving
the zone collec
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 20:35 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> > 2006/5/3, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> The number of *host* systems we support that don't have mmap is
> >> approaching 0, if it is not there already :)
> >
> > Uhm, at least DJGPP as a GCC host
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Mitchell) wrote on 03.05.06 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To make this work, we have to be careful not to generate as much garbage
> as we presently do, as we'll needlessly waste space in these pools.
> Right now, we're using GC partly to compensate for things like using
> tre
Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> 2006/5/3, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> The number of *host* systems we support that don't have mmap is
>> approaching 0, if it is not there already :)
>
> Uhm, at least DJGPP as a GCC host system is alive and does not support
> mmap. But according to the foll
2006/5/3, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The number of *host* systems we support that don't have mmap is
approaching 0, if it is not there already :)
Uhm, at least DJGPP as a GCC host system is alive and does not support
mmap. But according to the following discussion, that's non-issue.
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:31:00AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Again, I'm not sure the portability fixes are a real issue.
> There is nothing that prevents ggc-zone from being the default on
> systems with mmap, and ggc-page the default elsewhere.
>
> One of the reasons that the portability patc
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 17:18 +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I'm replying to both emails at once, as they
> are related.
>
> 2006/5/3, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > - Assuming that Boehm GC turns out to be unusable for the compiler,
> > > fini
Hi,
Thanks for your comments. I'm replying to both emails at once, as they
are related.
2006/5/3, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - Assuming that Boehm GC turns out to be unusable for the compiler,
> finish the zone collector. Again, searching mailing list about what's
> unfinished wa
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 09:34:38PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> My thoughts are along the lines of Daniel's. I originally believed that
> the better data layout of lifetime and object specific pools would help,
> but it only helps about 10% in the extreme.
Oh, one of the more interesting results
Daniel Berlin wrote:
I wrote a lot of the current zone collector. Before that, Daniel
Berlin did a lot of work on it. I really don't think I have time to
mentor an SoC project (Daniel, do you, maybe?),
I do, in fact, have time to mentor such a project, and would be happy to
mentor it if you
> I wrote a lot of the current zone collector. Before that, Daniel
> Berlin did a lot of work on it. I really don't think I have time to
> mentor an SoC project (Daniel, do you, maybe?),
I do, in fact, have time to mentor such a project, and would be happy to
mentor it if you submit it and it
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 09:07:19PM +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> Having that in mind, also because I actually like doing
> infrastructural projects, cleaning up, speeding up things instead of
> implementing new features, I think I have found a suitable area for my
> project: garbage collection.
19 matches
Mail list logo
