Re: GC_enable_incremental()

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Bryce McKinlay writes:
 > Boehm, Hans wrote:
 > 
 > >The real-time thread is running Java code?
 > >
 > >There are several issues with getting incremental collection to work
 > >in 3.4:
 > >
 > 
 > >2) There hasn't been a systematic effort to get incremental GC debugged
 > >and tested in the context of gcj.  This is nontrivial, since it can break
 > >if a system call writes to a pointer-containing section of the heap.
 > >Hence the library has to play by a stricter set of rules.
 > 
 > Is this really a problem? I can't think of any situation where a system 
 > call would write to pointers on the heap. Unless perhaps 
 > System.arraycopy() were implemented by a system call on some platform, 
 > but I don't think this is the case usually.

I agree.  I some contexts I can imagine a call to read() that writes
pointers, but not in libgcj.

Andrew.