Am Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:10:04 +
schrieb Orvid King blah38...@gmail.com:
Just thought of a minor addition to the guidelines.
While discussion of the naming of the public API should occur on
the newsgroup, discussion of the names of locals, or non-public
APIs should occur on Github.
Just thought of a minor addition to the guidelines.
While discussion of the naming of the public API should occur on
the newsgroup, discussion of the names of locals, or non-public
APIs should occur on Github.
Any objections/concerns/improvements to this?
On 23.04.2014 20:35, Messenger wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
After all of that, I intend to include a base draft of the design of
the GC, along with opening the PRs and committing the starting API.
So, is there something I’m missing? Am I overlooking
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
After all of that, I intend to include a base draft of the
design of the GC, along with opening the PRs and committing the
starting API. So, is there something I’m missing? Am I
overlooking the obvious? Is there a more practical
On 4/23/14, Joakim via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
It might help if you put
forth a tentative proposal, that the D goons can then proceed to
destroy... I mean, critically evaluate.
Btw guys, what's stopping us from simply porting over Leandro's CDGC
to D2? I've looked at
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 18:35:26 UTC, Messenger wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
After all of that, I intend to include a base draft of the
design of the GC, along with opening the PRs and committing
the starting API. So, is there something I’m
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 18:35:26 UTC, Messenger wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
After all of that, I intend to include a base draft of the
design of the GC, along with opening the PRs and committing
the starting API. So, is there something I’m
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 10:14:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 18:35:26 UTC, Messenger wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
After all of that, I intend to include a base draft of the
design of the GC, along with opening the PRs and
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 14:15:45 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 10:14:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 18:35:26 UTC, Messenger wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
After all of that, I intend to include a base
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 07:09:27 UTC, Mike wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
After all of that, I intend to include a base draft of the
design of the GC, along with opening the PRs and committing
the starting API. So, is there something I’m missing? Am
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 14:22:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 14:15:45 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
Ah, I hadn't realized he had actually implemented the
concurrent GC he gave a talk on, I will make sure to look over
the code before writing out the design. I was also
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 14:22:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 14:15:45 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 10:14:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 18:35:26 UTC, Messenger wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 14:15:45 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 10:14:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 18:35:26 UTC, Messenger wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
After all of that, I intend to include a base
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 06:10:00 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
On 23.04.2014 20:35, Messenger wrote:
What is the state of Rainer Schütze's precise gc? Duplication
of effort
and all that.
The implementation relies on correct RTInfo generation, but
that still doesn't work as this pull
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 17:10:20 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
The implementation relies on correct RTInfo generation, but
that still doesn't work as this pull request is sitting there
for 8 months now without getting much review:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2480
So
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 17:33:08 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Another issue is that in 64-bit address space precise GC gives
no advantage as false pointers have low probability, so precise
GC seems to be not worth the effort.
Except a precise gc is type-aware, no? And you could basically
ask it
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 17:33:08 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Another issue is that in 64-bit address space precise GC gives
no advantage as false pointers have low probability, so precise
GC seems to be not worth the effort.
I disagree, in the current state of things there is benefit for
64
On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 18:39:34 UTC, Messenger wrote:
Except a precise gc is type-aware, no? And you could basically
ask it to please print out everything that you have currently
allocated so I can debug what's allocating.
Depends on the implementation. One would want to not store data
So, in order to get the ball rolling on the new GC I intend to
implement for D, I want to facilitate a lively discussion of the
design of it, so that it can be designed to be both robust and
free of design flaws. To keep the discussion from getting
derailed, I want to lay out a few guidelines,
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
So, in order to get the ball rolling on the new GC I intend to
implement for D, I want to facilitate a lively discussion of
the design of it, so that it can be designed to be both robust
and free of design flaws. To keep the
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 15:33:36 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
After all of that, I intend to include a base draft of the
design of the GC, along with opening the PRs and committing the
starting API. So, is there something I’m missing? Am I
overlooking the obvious? Is there a more practical
Am Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:35:25 +
schrieb Messenger d...@shoot.me:
What is the state of Rainer Schütze's precise gc? Duplication of
effort and all that.
+1. And I hope you know what you are up to :D. Some people
may expect a magic pill to emerge from your efforts that makes
the GC approx. as
22 matches
Mail list logo
