http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251
Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251
Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251
wfunct...@hotmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |REMIND
--- Comment #4 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251
--- Comment #5 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-03-01 03:39:55 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Just wondering, why was this marked as Resolved, Invalid with no
comment?
Huh?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251
--- Comment #6 from wfunct...@hotmail.com 2012-03-01 14:53:44 PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
No, it's inevitable that a mark-and-sweep GC on a 32 bit system won't work if
large numbers of false pointers are present. And this code:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251
wfunct...@hotmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251
David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
