[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Garbage Collection

From: strk
Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Garbage Collection
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:32:11 +0200

On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:11:43AM +0900, Chad Musick wrote:

> > Would a GC::manage() call outside of GcInvoke presence cause an assertion 
> > failure 
> > or equivalent exception ?
> > 
> No, but it might cause temporarily unreachable objects to be deleted.

I'm wondering if there's a way to catch programmatic errors by a predictable
exceptional condition rather then an unpredictable unlucky run of the 

> > > The reason is that the GC uses the iterators to mark containers and
> > > invalidating the iterators may make the Gc de-reference or increment an
> > > invalid iterator.
> > 
> > This makes me think a GcManagedContainer class would be appropriate here,
> > to be used whenever the container contains GC-managed objects.
> > The class could take care of proper locking, what do you think ?
> I think this is unneeded complexity -- external locking allows the
> marking of any container which can use iterators.  Currently, we use:
> std::map, std::vector, std::list that I know of.  Possibly std::set as
> well, I haven't checked.

Yes we use many different kind of containers. And yes, it would be more
complex to use a templated container class for this.
I'm just trying to think of possible ways reduce chances of programmatic


reply via email to

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