At 4:43 AM -0500 3/26/02, Michel J Lambert wrote:
>Am I correct in assuming that the stacks stuff leaks memory? Both stacks.c
>and rxstacks.c allocate memory via mem_allocate_aligned, but never free
>it, relying on the GC for it (code written before the GC existed).
>
>Should these stacks be changed to use a buffers system, or should they be
>changed to free their own chunks on certain pops? Following the logic in
>register.c, which handles it's own memory of register stack chunks, I
>would guess the latter, although there might be a performance gain if it
>can reuse these chunks via the GC.
While it's a little late as there are stack patches in already, the
stack stuff should free its memory when its done with it. (Though I
could argue that some sort of stack chunk arena system would be in
order. I'm not sure the complexity is warranted,t hough)
>Finally, I'd also argue for a renaming or #defining of mem_realloc to
>Parrot_reallocate, to match Parrot_allocate. At first glance, I thought
>mem_alloc punted down to the native realloc routines, and it was
>reallocing GC-managed memory. :)
Good point. Yes, we should.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
