harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] finalizer design questions
Date Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:01:10 GMT

On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:

> GCV5 does not need a custom finalizer. That is what would impact  
> modularity.
> In fact, even that would not, if the interface were standardised.
> However, one would prefer GC's not to provide their own  
> implementations for
> the interface since they are not fully aware of system load, and  
> the GC dll
> can be unloaded in somewhat dynamic environments.

Exactly.

>
> All that has happened is that working on GCV5 has caused the current
> finalizer design/implementation to be reviewed.

I see.  I was confused by the following from Xiao-Feng, which made me  
think that the GVv5 had it's own finalizer subsystem.

On Dec 28, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Xiao-Feng Li wrote:

> Very interesting. Thanks for the probation. I think GCv5 finalization
> subsystem does similarly.



>
> On 12/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Well, we need a finalizer.  I agree that we're overthinking  
>> this a
>> >> >bit, but I'd like to understand why anyone thinks this belongs in
>> >> the
>> >> >GC - we keep claiming to do a modular VM, yet then do things like
>> >> >this... :)
>> >
>> >
>> > We can keep the minimal finalization implementation we have now ( a
>> > single
>> > high priority finalization thread ), and wait for use cases that
>> > need more.
>> > IMHO.
>> >
>> > The finalization subsystem is currently a VM component and the VM
>> > exposes
>> > the interface ( though minimal ) to the GC. This is the right way,
>> > and does
>> > not violate modularity or GC pluggability.
>>
>> So I don't understand what we are discussing - you seem to agree with
>> me that it belongs in the VM, and not the GC.
>>
>> This little discussion started because I was asking Xiaofeng why GCv5
>> had it's own finalization subsystem...
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message