Re: Go 1.5

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 18:20:16 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: I'm not sure if the current collector scans all registers, or just scans the stack? According to the docs it scans all registers, but even then one must be careful and do addRoot before the pointer is set, otherwise

Re: Go 1.5

No, collection could not occure if we speaking about current D GC implementation. So it safe to set pointer before addRoot. Dne 19. 9. 2015 21:00 napsal uživatel "Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce" : > On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 18:20:16

Re: Go 1.5

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 19:17:38 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: No, collection could not occure if we speaking about current D GC implementation. So it safe to set pointer before addRoot. It can be triggered by another thread. Wrong: ptr = somestack.pop(); someglobalptr = ptr; // ptr

Re: Release D 2.068.1

On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 18:34:48 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Tuesday, 15 September 2015 at 08:39:43 UTC, John Colvin wrote: Where is the VERSION file documented? Why does it need manual intervention only for patch releases and pre-releases? We should prolly remove the manually

LDC 0.16.0 alpha4 is out! We need your feedback!

Hi everyone, LDC 0.16.0 alpha4, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for download! This release is based on the 2.067.1 frontend and standard library and supports LLVM 3.1-3.7 (OS X: no support for 3.3). Don't miss to check if your preferred system is supported by this release. There is

Re: Go 1.5

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 19:25:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 19:17:38 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: No, collection could not occure if we speaking about current D GC implementation. So it safe to set pointer before addRoot. It can be triggered by

Re: Go 1.5

Dne 19.9.2015 v 21:30 Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce napsal(a): On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 19:25:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 19:17:38 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: No, collection could not occure if we speaking about current D GC

Re: Go 1.5

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 09:22:40 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: Please, let's stop pretending you only have to scan the GC heap. You have to scan all pointers that somehow can lead to something that can lead to something... that points into the GC heap. Yes, good point. One

Re: Go 1.5

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 17:56:23 UTC, thedeemon wrote: Yes, good point. One should keep root ranges small too. If we carefully use addRoot() and addRange() for data directly pointing to GC heap I think we don't need to let GC scan everything that can lead to this data. This is

Re: Go 1.5

On Friday, 18 September 2015 at 19:26:27 UTC, Rory wrote: The new GC in Go 1.5 seems interesting. What they say about is certainly interesting. They went the way of classical GC-ed language where write barriers are used actively, allowing to make concurrent, incremental and (eventually, if

Re: Go 1.5

On 18-Sep-2015 23:46, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Friday, 18 September 2015 at 19:26:27 UTC, Rory wrote: [snip] The reason Go has a better GC than D is that Go users have no choice but to use the GC, while D users have a bunch more options. To put it differently - D is a big language that has

Re: Go 1.5

On Friday, 18 September 2015 at 19:26:27 UTC, Rory wrote: The new GC in Go 1.5 seems interesting. What they say about is certainly interesting. http://blog.golang.org/go15gc Go 1.6 GC roadmap: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kBx98ulj5V5M9Zdeamy7v6ofZXX3yPziAf0V27A64Mo/preview

Re: Go 1.5

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 08:36:51 UTC, thedeemon wrote: full heap every time. And that leads to different usage pattern where GC heap should remain small and GC allocation rate low. Please, let's stop pretending you only have to scan the GC heap. You have to scan all pointers that

Re: Go 1.5

The impression I got reading the article was that their GC was very much like our current one except that the marking part of the algorithm was run concurrently. That is the only reason I shared the article. To me it seems one should be to mark variables/types with which style of memory

Re: Go 1.5

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 at 14:12:10 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote: The impression I got reading the article was that their GC was very much like our current one except that the marking part of the algorithm was run concurrently. It is quite different. As mentioned they also protect writes to