On Wednesday, 4 March 2015 at 08:13:33 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 March 2015 at 03:46:36 UTC, Zach the Mystic
wrote:
That's fine. I like DIP25. It's a start towards stronger
safety guarantees. While I'm pretty sure the runtime costs of
my proposal are lower than yours, they do require compiler
hacking, which means they can wait.
I don't think that it is fine.
At this point we need to :
- Not free anything as long as something is alive.
- Can't recycle memory.
- Keep track of allocated chunk to be able to free them (ie
implementing malloc on top of malloc).
Well, I don't want to make any enemies. I thought that once the
compiler was hacked people could just change their
deferred-freeing code.
