> From: Taylor R Campbell <campb...@mumble.net> > Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:39:22 +0000 > > [...] or prove that the memory barriers are not necessary for other > reasons.
I thought we were all cool with assuming word-sized memory coherency. Doesn't the x86-64 architecture guarantee that a word like constant- space-queue will be written atomically? > I'm also a little puzzled about the queue scheme. It seems like now > we waste constant space for all the pairs that were used only for the > purpose of queueing objects to be purified. Yes, you puzzled that one out. I traded a few pairs for a straight- forward implementation. You would prefer that the queue not be purified during a GC interrupt? Only by explicit application of flush-purification-queue!? I'm cool with that. _______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-devel mailing list MIT-Scheme-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-devel
