At 7:19 PM -0500 12/28/03, Matt Fowles wrote:Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 3:27 PM -0500 12/28/03, Matt Fowles wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I'd use a custom hash with the PMC address being the key[1]. /Me thinks, it
doesn't help, when a PMC gets registered multiple times - its always the
same address - removing it multiple times is fine, the first succeeds,
following fail silently, they do nothing.
On a side note, couldn't this be used for the explicit root set augmentation version of DOD that was discussed?
If you're speaking of what I think you are (my memory sucks) then this is exactly that. If you're not speaking of what I think you are, then no it isn't, but you can probably use it for that. :)
I am, but there is a little more. The explicit root set augmentation was suggested as a way to avoid stackwalking.
Ah, OK. No, this isn't that. There's far too much overhead involved for it to be reasonable for that purpose.
I know people really hate the idea of walking the system stack, but it really isn't evil, and is definitely a much more stable and safe alternative to the gyrations that'd otherwise be needed.
Reading my backlog from the holidays and flu.
My 2 cents.
It isn't guaranteed that disabling stack walking is going to work since there may be other
places (even in Parrot internals) where someone is holding onto a PMC pointer while
a DOD runs (besides extension code). The stack walking was added to help fix the
infant mortality problem, which was way before extension API.
-Melvin
