Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2003, at 1:34 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> ... What I'm really worried about here is the case
> where something like an array may have a reference to some PMC which
> its using as a cache, but which is not supposed to be archived along
> with the
On Nov 19, 2003, at 1:34 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 19, 2003, at 9:04 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Two initial concerns:
1) I have a patch which I've been assembling to do ordered
destruction.
That needs to use the next_for_GC pointer (and I think any al
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2003, at 9:04 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Two initial concerns:
> 1) I have a patch which I've been assembling to do ordered destruction.
> That needs to use the next_for_GC pointer (and I think any alternate
> implementation would need to as well
On Nov 19, 2003, at 9:04 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Just a quick heads-up--I checked in the preliminary patch for
freeze/thaw
that Leo sent me for review. It'll change internally a fair amount, and
the vtable/low-level API is going to change, but the op-level interface
will be stable. I wanted it in
