At 6:37 AM -0400 4/14/02, Mike Lambert wrote:
>Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>
>> Oh, in which case, I agree with you. ;-)
>
>Oh, woops. :) For some reason I was assuming you were arguing against
>my patch.
Which is applied. I'd rather enforce the "No allocations until
mem_setup_allocator is done, allocations just fine after" rule, but
since I've not made it clear... :)
Anyway, I think we're OK here, and worst case we pork out a little at
the beginning. I don't think that's an issue--if the base allocation
quantities are large we won't hit them, and if they're small we won't
waste much, if any, memory.
>Anyways, below is a revised and simpler patch that implements the same
>semantics as before, but using Dan's new DOD_block_level and
>GC_block_level method for disabling the GC.
>
>Dan, are you still opposed to a non-GC_DEBUG version of this patch, in
>light of the discussion that ensued?
If I was, it's too late now. :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
