LGTM. We should try to address Ivan's comments and get rid of the workarounds soon, but I agree that we should try to land this now and push it to a Dev channel release ASAP.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:54 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Drive by comments about this implementation. We should probably take > this now to roll out a fix quickly, but then address the issue raised > here about collection order. > > -Ivan > > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/100344/diff/1/3 > File src/mark-compact.cc (right): > > http://codereview.chromium.org/100344/diff/1/3#newcode588 > Line 588: // not receive a weak reference callback. > In retrospect was that not always a problem even with regular > non-external strings only being referred to by a sliced string in the > symbol table? > > http://codereview.chromium.org/100344/diff/1/3#newcode601 > Line 601: SetMark(symbol_table); > The flipping of mark bits to marked and back to unmarked seems fragile > to me. Currently this only works because of the order (symbol table > walking being first.) > > Since we need to handle the symbol table in a special way. The direct > references are not marked but any depending ones. Can we add a special > marker instead? That way we would not be depending on resetting mark > bits during a GC, which is an unneeded break of the assertions of the GC > algorithm and adds unknown ordering dependencies in the marking steps > making the code more complex. > > http://codereview.chromium.org/100344 > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
