This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Patch: gcj ggc patch

From: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Java Patch List <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 22:58:18 -0800
Subject: Re: Patch: gcj ggc patch
References: <87r8mx48kg.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <3C869B26.2070703@bothner.com> <20020306145744.C8434@redhat.com>

Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:41:42PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> 
>>Does an identifier node stashed in a global variable need
>>to be explicitly ggc-registerd?
>>
> 
> It would, IMO, be for the best to really mark _all_ roots,
> even if they're considered to be redundant.

That seems silly.  Deliberate redundancy is not normally
how Gcc is engineered (except for sanity checks to detect errors).
Redundantly marking identifier nodes leads to confusion and bugs,
because it is not clear whose responsibility it actually
is to mark the identifier.

This is a specification issue of the semantics of identifier
nodes, and there should be a clear answer:  Can an identifier,
once it has been created, ever be garbage collected?
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Patch: gcj ggc patch
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Patch: gcj ggc patch
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- Patch: gcj ggc patch
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Patch: gcj ggc patch
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: Patch: gcj ggc patch
  - From: Richard Henderson

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