Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion vtables as collectable objects

Newsgroups: perl.perl6.internals
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.perl.org
Return-Path: <d...@sidhe.org>
Mailing-List: contact perl6-internals-h...@perl.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list perl6-intern...@perl.org
Received: (qmail 65201 invoked by uid 76); 4 Mar 2004 15:06:43 -0000
Received: from x1.develooper.com (HELO x1.develooper.com) (63.251.223.170) by onion.perl.org (qpsmtpd/0.26) with SMTP; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 07:06:43 -0800
Received: (qmail 19395 invoked by uid 225); 4 Mar 2004 15:06:41 -0000
Delivered-To: perl6-intern...@perl.org
Received: (qmail 19284 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2004 15:06:16 -0000
Received: from [64.252.94.178] (HELO sprite.sidhe.org) (64.252.94.178)  by la.mx.develooper.com (qpsmtpd/0.27-dev) with SMTP; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 07:06:15 -0800
Received: (qmail 22755 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2004 15:18:10 -0000
X-Scanned-By: AMaViS-ng at sidhe.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.1.2?) (d...@65.75.18.11)  by 178.94.252.64.snet.net with SMTP; 4 Mar 2004 15:18:09 -0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: dan@localhost
Message-ID: <a06010205bc6cf5235fe9@[10.0.1.2]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:06:01 -0500
To: perl6-intern...@perl.org
Subject: vtables as collectable objects
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on x1.develooper.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=8.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 	version=2.63
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.26, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Approved: n...@nntp.perl.org
From: d...@sidhe.org (Dan Sugalski)

It'd be simple enough to do--prepend a PObj front to the vtables and 
allocate the vtables themselves out of a separate managed arena, and 
do a bit of custom mark noting. This'd make collecting up unused 
vtables easy enough. The downside to this is it means we add in a 
*lot* of extra pointer traversal, as we add in an extra live pointer 
for every live PMC in the system.

It's a lot of extra work for the DOD. I'm up for it if we have to, 
but I'd prefer to not do it if we don't have to.

Opinions, folks?
-- 
                                         Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
d...@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                       teddy bears get drunk