harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Weldon Washburn" <weldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][gcv5] finalizer design
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:01:49 GMT
On 12/15/06, Pavel Pervov <pmcfirst@gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, I do not understand, why alternate implementation was
> commited
> without ANY discussion on the mailing list.

Actually, nothing should be committed without sufficient discussion.
However committing code often requires a judgement call else the entire
harmony development process would slow down significantly.

Given that 2560 does not disrupt the existing finalizer operation and that
it is straight forward to commit compensating changes, I decided to go ahead
and do the commit.

So, it would be more correct from my POV to revert the patch, politely ask
> the authors of that patch to speak up, why it was required to reimplement
> finalizers and weak references support in DRLVM and then start a vote (if
> there will be anything to vote for) or fix the issues GCv5 authors have
> with
> current design present in DRLVM.

Good point.  Consider it done.

> Regards
> --
> Pavel Pervov,
> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
> P.S. BTW, making such commit would prevent us from developing class
> unloading design which may show way better performance than original
> design
> had.

This is valuable insight.  Please tell more.

Weldon Washburn
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message