On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:25:14PM -0600, Eric Hughes wrote: > At 05:50 PM 6/15/2007, strk wrote: > >Both GC and RC ? Do you really want to go there ? > > Well, I've always seen RC as special case of GC, one that's not reliable in > general. A reference count can be seen as a memo of the number of incoming > edges. It would seem that there may be some benefit to combining the > mechanisms. But like I said before, my desiderata was simplicity of > interface--nothing else.
The benefit would be that known-to-be-unreachable would be released and removed from the GC list of maintained pointers earlier. Would take an interator into the GC list (most likely a pointer to a node of a doubly linked list) for each "managed" object and wouldn't remove the cost of ref counting (shouldn't be too high). The downside is that the current *intrusive* way of doing ref-counting can't work, as it relies on the pointed-to object to be alive for the whole lifetime of the containing smart pointer. Anyway we may want to add a different implementation once the abstraction / interface is stable. > >Can't we just rely on the programmer to know what > >he's doing and NOT registering the instance with the GC ? > > Things change. An original coder probably knows better. One making an > incremental modification may not. The most obvious error would be adding a > reference to an existing non-GC object from a new GC object as an > incremental addition and not realizing there's a need to add gc_ptr<> to > the old declaration. I'm not sure I'm understanding this case. The current GC doesn't rely on transparent referencing for the mark scan. Failing to register a resource with the GC would result in leaks. Failing to properly mark a registered and reachable resource would result in memory faults. > >Passing auto values around as pointers is a bug, I'd avoid complex solution > >to make it safe. > > Yes, passing pointers to auto values as such is unsafe. Initializing a > managed object with one, however, need not be unsafe. I have some ideas > about how to do this, if you're curious. Sure, go ahead. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > >Anyway suggestions for a better name are welcome. > > How about "template< class T> managed_ptr ;"? Good, will use that. Mind you will still just be a define for now ... --strk; _______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
