This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: robustness vs. conservative GC

To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Subject: Re: robustness vs. conservative GC
From: Tom Lord <lord at regexps dot com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10107292315250.15329-100000@mars.deadcafe.org><200107300841.BAA24753@morrowfield.home><20010730163206.A24116@hg.cs.mu.oz.au> <m1u1zuzcjv.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>



       > If you have specific experience [compilers messing up
       > conservative GC] in deployed systems,
       > I'd be interested in hearing about that.

Bug fixes have been added to Systas Scheme, and if I recall correctly,
Guile and SCM Scheme, to fix instantces of this problem caused when
compiling with GCC, without any optimization flags.

I don't think there's anything special about those interpreters:
what would prevent similar bugs from biting GCC or various Java
implementations?

These bugs aren't easy to test for, and might easily be ignored as
random, irreproducable failures.


-t

References:
- robustness vs. conservative GC
  - From: Tom Lord
- Re: robustness vs. conservative GC
  - From: Fergus Henderson
- Re: robustness vs. conservative GC
  - From: Eric W. Biederman

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]