From: Alexandre Oliva (oliva@dcc.unicamp.br)
Date: Fri Dec 18 1998 - 15:16:16 EST
On Dec 18, 1998, Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> So, are you saying what's currently checked in is broken?
Nope, I reverted my try to define MARK_IFNONNULL to
MARK_OBJECT(_PRECISE), that was causing all that breakage.
> Actually, one thing I just noticed and which I'm somewhat skeptical
> about is that MARK_OBJECT changed the semantics. It's not just a
> macro version of markObject, it's a macro version of
> markObjectDontCheck. This is somewhat confusing.
Good that you renamed it. I was really trying to avoid the
is_heap_object test, since I assumed we knew where real objects would
be. My tests have shown we don't yet.
> Basically, using MARK_OBJECT instead of markObject will crash if
> you attempt to mark static data (as you've observed for the interface
> list of arrays.)
Shouldn't we try to make that interface list GC_ALLOC_FIXED data, to
try to avoid this kind of exception?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org}
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:22 EDT