This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> writes: >> From: Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tom> If the root set is large, certainly it should be traced in several Tom> steps, using barriers to preserve its invariants. >> Is there a practical example of a system that does this? It seems >> very difficult to do, even absent an FFI to C, as your typical root >> set---the current continuation---changes *all the time*. (I'm really >> curious. I could never wrap my mind around this.) Tom> You can treat the "big-three abstract registers" (continuation, code, Tom> and environment) specially. They have usefully limited usage Tom> patterns. It's the other roots, if your implementation has them, Tom> that are of greater interest. (The draft FFI creates "other roots".) That isn't the question I asked. All hard questions are buried behind "specially." Tom> If you want to have a chat about incremental GC strategies, please Tom> c'mon over to the pika-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list: It seems the GC list would be the right place to discuss this. Tom> Not all incremental collectors are incompatible with the FFI (a mostly Tom> copying semi-conservative incremental GC would be one example). This was actually a precise non-copying incremental GC. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla