--- Comment #64 from Leandro Lucarella <llu...@gmail.com> 2010-07-28 13:04:07
(In reply to comment #62)
> (In reply to comment #61)
> > Even when I agree that the GC needs a lot of refactoring, I don't think
> > it's a
> > good idea to include it in this patch, it makes much harder to understand it
> > and it might introduce some subtle bugs that will be very hard to track
> > down in
> > so many changes.
> I have to agree, but I did these changes in order to make storing a bitmask
> configurable, and to properly support SENTINEL. The changes the original patch
> did weren't very small either.
> I see 4 options:
> 1. keep this anyway
> 2. keep the old gcx.d around and apply the changes to a new incarnation of
> gcx.d, and let the user choose the GC implementation at startup or compile
> 3. only accept the compiler patch, and wait for Leandro's new GC
> 4. revert to the previous version of my patch (of course I wouldn't like this
> at all)
> Which is it?
I think this should be replied by whoever have the authority to merge the
patches, my comments were just wishes (and you made them true in a much higher
proportion that I was expecting :). I'd say 1 is OK.
About my GC, is a research work and, even when my goal is something realistic
and I'm doing performance tests all the time, don't expect much. :)
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------