> I tend to think that the costs of RCObject for general "XPCOMGC" use are too > high: in particular, I think we want to have pervasive cycles between DOM > objects: parent<->children DOM nodes as well as node<->document references.
I agree. I don't see that much added benefit in using RCObjects rather than just GCObjects. The only win is earlier destruction of objects, at the cost of performance overhead and complexity. It does worry me a little though that if we make all XPCOM objects GCObjects, we won't destroy any XPCOM objects until the first GC. It would be good to create a testbuild that doesn't destroy any XPCOM objects and see how much memory such a build uses just to start up the browser. During startup I don't think we currently do a GC, and we probably don't want to for performance reasons. / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-tech-xpcom mailing list dev-tech-xpcom@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpcom
