GC leaks debugging
Wed Apr 13 14:27:00 GMT 2011
On 04/13/2011 01:11 PM, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Andrew Haley <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 12/04/11 19:42, Erik Groeneveld wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, I'd like to pursue a better solution - less of a hack. Any
>>> interest in helping out?
>> Before you go any further, it's worth remembering that you're using an
>> old version of the GC. I've been told that "Of course, [the new gc]
>> will require modification of boehm.cc in GCJ" but not why.
>> It looks like you're making progress, but I urge you to move to the
>> new gc or your time may be wasted on the old one.
> Now would certainly be a good time to work on a boehm-gc import, with
> GCC in stage 1.
> Note that Kai Tietz has recently expressed interest in working on this, too:
> "svn import" and "svn merge" are your friends here. The unmodified
> upstream sources from the last time we merged are tagged as GC_6_6.
> IIRC, the local modifications at that time were fairly minimal, mostly
> just configure changes. If you import the current sources with a
> similar tag, it'll make it easy to get a diff of the GCC tree's
> current divergences, which can then be submitted upstream if
I think we're a bit further down the road than that, judging by the
traffic on the gc list. Ivan Madanski said
> I've reviewed the patches from gcc/boem-gc. The following ones I'm
> unable to process (and some at GCC side should have a look at, may
> be the original patch authors could adopt their ones for GC v7+):
> bgc-167681 - darwin-specific (probably this one no longer needed for v7+);
> bgc-171516 - testsuite-specific;
> bgc-144045 bgc-150269 bgc-151013 bgc-151627 bgc-166028 - scripts-specific ones;
> bgc-114869, bgc-124081 - specific to thread suspension.
So these are the only patches that require special handling by someone
on the gcc side.
More information about the Java