At 8:59 AM +0100 5/1/05, sphillips wrote:
/lurk
I have been enjoying the recent discussion of GC vs refcounting. Thanks.
While you're rehashing/justifying sensible design decisions made
years ago ;-) I was wondering why you decided to roll-your-own GC
rather than use an established one e.g. Hans
/lurk
I have been enjoying the recent discussion of GC vs refcounting. Thanks.
While you're rehashing/justifying sensible design decisions made years
ago ;-) I was wondering why you decided to roll-your-own GC rather than
use an established one e.g. Hans Boehm's.
I ask this not because I have
Robin Redeker writes:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 05:02:54PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
destroy. There's a vtable method that's called by the GC system when
an object is no longer reachable from the root set.
Actually, not when, but some (indefinite) time after that has happened,
right?
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9:19 AM +0200 4/30/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
BTW shouldn't we really separate Cdestroy and Cfinalize? The latter
would be overridable by user code, the former frees allocate memory.
I can't really think of a reason to have two cleanup actions. Maybe
Sphillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/lurk
While you're rehashing/justifying sensible design decisions made years
ago ;-) I was wondering why you decided to roll-your-own GC rather than
use an established one e.g. Hans Boehm's.
Mainly two reasons: no one did try to implement e.g. Boehm GC with
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not currently. There used to be a Cdestroy opcode, but I've deleted
it, because I thought it's too dangerous.
We really need to put it back in -- I knew it was dangerous, but it
was necessary.
Yeah.
... We should probably make it 'safe' by forcing the
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... For the most part, refcount O(n) time is
proportional to the total number of objects created, while tracing
O(n) time is proportional to the number of live objects.
Not quite. Refcount is O(work) or O(ptr-assign), which can be quite
different. Python
At 11:12 PM -0400 4/29/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:23:47 -0400
At 10:55 PM -0400 4/28/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm astounded. Do neither of you ever design data structures with
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 09:19 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
BTW shouldn't we really separate Cdestroy and Cfinalize? The latter
would be overridable by user code, the former frees allocate memory.
I think that's wise and I thought that was the plan. Certainly for
*Struct PMCs I don't care when
At 7:50 PM +0200 4/30/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
Hi!
Just a small question:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:37:21PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If you don't have the destroy, and don't tag the object as needing
expedited cleanup, then the finalizer *will* still be called. You
just don't have any
At 9:19 AM +0200 4/30/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... We should probably make it 'safe' by forcing the
destroyed PMC to be an Undef after destruction, in case something was
still referring to it.
That sounds sane. Or maybe be: convert to an Undef and put a
Hi!
Just a small question:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:37:21PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If you don't have the destroy, and don't tag the object as needing
expedited cleanup, then the finalizer *will* still be called. You
just don't have any control over when its called.
Will there be
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:14:38AM -0400, Butler, Gerald wrote:
:
: Isn't there something like:
:
: {
: my $s does LEAVE { destroy $s } = new CoolClass;
: # ... do stuff that may throw ...
: }
:
: Or something like that?
Yes,it's
my $s will leave {
Gerald Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there something like:
{
my $s does LEAVE { destroy $s } = new CoolClass;
# ... do stuff that may throw ...
}
Or something like that?
Not currently. There used to be a Cdestroy opcode, but I've deleted
At 3:05 PM +0200 4/29/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Gerald Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there something like:
{
my $s does LEAVE { destroy $s } = new CoolClass;
# ... do stuff that may throw ...
}
Or something like that?
Not currently.
At 12:37 AM -0400 4/29/05, Uri Guttman wrote:
RR == Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RR I don't think circular references are used that much. This is
RR maybe something a programmer still has to think a little bit
RR about. And if it means, that timely destruction maybe becomes
At 10:55 PM -0400 4/28/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:12:50 +0200
Refcounting does this with a little overhead, but in a fast and
deterministic O(1) way.
This is the first half of an apples-to-oranges comparison, and so is
From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:23:47 -0400
At 10:55 PM -0400 4/28/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:12:50 +0200
Refcounting does this with a little overhead, but in a fast and
Dan Sugalski writes:
Also, with all this stuff, people are going to find timely destruction
is less useful than they might want, what with threads and
continuations, which'll screw *everything* up, as they are wont to do.
I know I've been making heavy use of continuations myself, and this is
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
Also, with all this stuff, people are going to find timely destruction
is less useful than they might want, what with threads and
continuations, which'll screw *everything* up, as they are wont to do.
I know
Robin Redeker writes:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
I think, more importantly, they don't understand what they're
getting in return for giving [refcounting] up.
Could you point out what i get?
I use TD is to handle resources: filehandles, database handles,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:59:05PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Robin Redeker writes:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
I think, more importantly, they don't understand what they're
getting in return for giving [refcounting] up.
Could you point out what i get?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
Just for the curious me: What was the design decision behind the GC
solution? Was refcounting that bad? Refcounting gives a more global
speed hit indeed, but it's more deterministic and
At 5:57 PM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
Just for the curious me: What was the design decision behind the GC
solution? Was refcounting that bad? Refcounting gives a more global
At 01:10 PM 4/28/2005, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:57 PM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
The expense is non-trivial as well. Yeah, it's all little tiny bits
of time, but that adds up.
At 12:12 AM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
Also, with all this stuff, people are going to find timely destruction
is less useful than they might want, what with threads and
continuations, which'll screw
I just wanted to correct my small example:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 05:00:53PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
Robin Redeker writes:
And with explicit resource handling (without timely destruction) it may be:
{
my $s = new CoolClass;
...
destroy $s;
}
This should
Robin Redeker writes:
This should actually be, to prevent the resource from leaking:
{
my $s = new CoolClass;
eval {
... do stuff that may throws ...
};
destroy $s;
}
Or, with the block hooks that I keep claiming makes timely destruction
almost
At 11:48 AM -0600 4/28/05, Luke Palmer wrote:
Robin Redeker writes:
This should actually be, to prevent the resource from leaking:
{
my $s = new CoolClass;
eval {
... do stuff that may throws ...
};
destroy $s;
}
Or, with the block hooks that I keep
At 7:24 PM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
I just wanted to correct my small example:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 05:00:53PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
Robin Redeker writes:
And with explicit resource handling (without timely destruction) it may be:
{
my $s = new CoolClass;
...
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 05:57:10PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
Just because refcounting is error-prone it doesn't mean that a garbage
collector is better (and less error-prone).
I'm one of the maintainers of the perl5 core. perl5 is very mature, with
relatively few new features being added, and
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Robin Redeker wrote:
I don't think circular references are used that much.
Circular references are useful any time you need to be able to iterate
over a collection, and also have to identify which collection a given object
is in.
This may even be implicit from other
From: Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:12:50 +0200
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
I agree with Dan completely here. People make such a big fuss over
timely destruction when they don't realize that they don't really need
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
Or, with the block hooks that I keep claiming makes timely destruction
almost never needed, it is:
{
my $s = new CoolClass;
# ... do stuff that may throw ...
LEAVE { destroy $s }
}
This destroys properly and even
RR == Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RR I don't think circular references are used that much. This is
RR maybe something a programmer still has to think a little bit
RR about. And if it means, that timely destruction maybe becomes
RR slow only for the sake of collecting
Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello!
The last weeks i've been in joy to implement a small vm for a
special runtime enviroment. As i'm a regular reader of the perl.perl6.*
mailing lists and know about parrot. I wondered how easy it would be
to throw away my own vm solution and use
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:09:48AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
1. i wonder how to load bytecode from the memory to parrot when
embedding it. i've read embed.pod and couldn't find a function that let me
create a packfile or something i can run,
Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:09:48AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
albeit it isn't part of the official embedding API (yet).
Ok, thanks, i'll have a look at that.
Any idea when there will be a more complete official embedding API?
Any hints when looking
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 02:27:58PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Any hints when looking for functions that 'maybe' go into the API?
API's aren't finished yet and are extended more or less on demand.
Ah, ok :) Who will decide what is demanded?
At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
Just for the curious me: What was the design decision behind the GC
solution? Was refcounting that bad? Refcounting gives a more global
speed hit indeed, but it's more deterministic and you wont run into
(probably) long halts during GC. (Java programs
From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:43:32 -0400
At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
Just for the curious me: What was the design decision behind the GC
solution? Was refcounting that bad? . . .
I'll answer this one, since I'm the one
Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 02:27:58PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
API's aren't finished yet and are extended more or less on demand.
Ah, ok :) Who will decide what is demanded?
A patch on p6l is a good indication for a demand :)
Hm, ok, i guess i will
Hello!
The last weeks i've been in joy to implement a small vm for a
special runtime enviroment. As i'm a regular reader of the perl.perl6.*
mailing lists and know about parrot. I wondered how easy it would be
to throw away my own vm solution and use parrot.
There are currently only two things
43 matches
Mail list logo
