[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Conservative GC isn't safe

From: Daniel Colascione
Subject: Re: Conservative GC isn't safe
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:40:22 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0

On 11/28/2016 11:37 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:18:32 -0800
Cc: address@hidden

Let me ask again: we already have all the runtime data we need for more
conservative GC. Where is the resistance to the idea coming from?

I already answered that up-thread: it will be dead code, and thus will
likely do the wrong thing if it ever runs.

We'll always have stray pointers to object interiors that will exercise these code paths. I've broken enough of them recently enough to know.

I also suggested what to do instead: add assertions that express what
we believe should never happen.  Stefan says doing that is unlikely to
be justified by the dangers, but if we think so, then we shouldn't be
afraid of the problem in the first place.  If we are, then adding
assertions is the way to go.

It's not possible to assert, statically or dynamically, that we don't have this problem. If we could, we wouldn't need conservative GC at all, since we'd know the exact locations of all pointers.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]