This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: robustness vs. conservative GC
- To: "'Tom Lord'" <lord at regexps dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: RE: robustness vs. conservative GC
- From: "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:23:14 -0700
- Cc: "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lord [mailto:email@example.com]
> After reading the omitted parts of your reply, I stand by original
> statement, except that it would have been more accurate to say
> "unpreventable" instead of "uncontrollable", since the alluded to
> failures can be deliberately caused -- a form of control which
> undermines the value of conservative collectors in numerous
You're talking about a denial of service attack on say, a Java
implementation, by causing it to retain extra memory? I don't think that's
fundamentally different from retaining lots of memory with real pointers.
Or are you talking about a GC-unsafe Java compiler used with a conservative
collector? I'd argue that's fundamentally no different from another (very
rarely triggered) compiler bug.