This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: robustness vs. conservative GC
- To: dewar at gnat dot com
- Subject: Re: robustness vs. conservative GC
- From: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 06:28:17 +1000
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, lord at regexps dot com
- References: <20010731010113.559FAF2B53@nile.gnat.com>
On 30-Jul-2001, dewar@gnat.com <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:
> <<Yes, but ensuring that requires cooperation from the back-end compiler!
>
> Not really, it is simply part of the instruction set for which the code
> generator is generating code.
Oh, I see. I didn't realize that the CDC 6600 used a tagged architecture.
> If you regard it as "cooperation" to generate
> correct code, then it is hard to imagine a back-end that does not cooperate :-)
I don't consider that to be cooperation.
But one of the reasons for wanting a solution that doesn't require
cooperation from the back-end is for portability. Relying on a tagged
architecture may avoid the need for back-end cooperation, but it isn't
a portable solution.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.