Nikolay Kuznetsov wrote:
Let me answer for Artem :), he is on vacation and most probably won't
answer soon.
We do occasionally use GCv4 to verify some threading issues, since
native threading resource allocation depends on "weak references".
Thus I would agree with Ivan, that sometimes it is helpful to switch
to different code base(which is handy and considered to be stable
enough), but if gcv4 won't be supported any more why don't drop it
having in mind that one can always take older revisions from SVN.
+1 for dropping GCv4
From that argument, I'm now against dropping GCv4, if you actually get
use out of it for verification of threading or other important issues.
Yes, you can always take older revisions, but that's a pain, and if that
is a "speedbump" that prevents you from doing those extra tests or
verifications, I'd rather keep it around as a convenience for you. :)
Seriously - if you need it, lets keep it.
geir
Nik.
On 11/2/06, Ivan Volosyuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to know the opinion of Artem, Salikh and Alexey
Ignatenko. They have used the GC and may have reasons to keep it.
As for me, I occasionally use it (GCv4) and a modified version of
GCv4.1 (which can help detect heap access via lost pointers). Most of
the time I prefer second one, but sometimes it is helpful to run with
completely different code base. I didn't try GCv5 yet. If it stable I
will switch to it.
--
Ivan
On 11/2/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any reason to keep this around in the main branch?
