From: Godmar Back (gback@cs.utah.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 18 1998 - 16:35:15 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.
I realized that after I had sent the mail.
>
> > 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.
I've learned that while debugging class gc ;-) ;-)
Like FIELD_ADDRESS in walkField: it is highly mysterious.
I guess it will be a good exercise in learning how the various
fields of the various structures are used.
>
> > 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?
>
Sure, if it works, why not.
- Godmar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:23 EDT