[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gen gc
From: |
Han-Wen |
Subject: |
Re: gen gc |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:12:38 +0200 |
address@hidden writes:
> Han-Wen <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > How is this supposed to portable to GenGC?
> >
> > SCM_DEFINE (scm_object_address, "object-address", 1, 0, 0,
> > (SCM obj),
> > "Return an integer that for the lifetime of @var{obj} is uniquely\n"
> > "returned by this function for @var{obj}")
> >
> > This is used in some of the goops code -- should I retain it?
>
> It would be cool if you could fake it. It doesn't need to be the real
> memory address of the object, just a unique integer.
?
What if I can't? Memory cells are going to move around. I don't see a
way to generate a unique number without making some kind of table for
objects subjected to object-address.
Btw, I can imagine that internal hash tables might use the address of
a cell as a source for a hash index. Does that happen anywhere?
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | address@hidden | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen
- gen gc, Han-Wen, 2002/07/17
- Re: gen gc, Marius Vollmer, 2002/07/17
- Re: gen gc,
Han-Wen <=
- Re: gen gc, Miroslav Silovic, 2002/07/18
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/07/18
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/18
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Tom Lord, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/19