[Gc] In bdwgc, do finalizers need to be strictly async-signal safe?

Jean-Claude Beaudoin jean.claude.beaudoin at gmail.com
Mon Jan 2 17:36:06 PST 2012


On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Boehm, Hans <hans.boehm at hp.com> wrote:

> They don't need to be fully async-signal-safe.  The details depend on how
> finalizers are invoked.  If GC_finalize_on_demand is not set (the default,
> but not recommended for anything but very simple uses) finalizers will be
> invoked on the way out of an allocation call.  The finalizer must thus be
> callable in any context in which GC_malloc etc. can be called.
>

Boy, was I way off in the left field on this one!  Somehow I was under the
wrong impression that
finalizers were called during the dynamic extent of the "stop-the-world"
signal handlers the GC
uses. But this is clearly not the case, thank you for setting me straight.

Your clarification has also been critical in finally nailing down a severe
bug in the system
I am currently working on.


>
> If GC_finalize_on_demand is set, and GC_invoke_finalizers is explicitly
> called, then finalizers are invoked only from GC_invoke_finalizers.
>  Typically this will be done from a thread dedicated to that purpose.  In
> that case it's fine to acquire locks, etc., from finalizers.
>
>
GC_finalize_on_demand is currently ignored in the code but I see the
superior value of
your recommended alternative and I will work to use it soon.  Again, thank
you very much.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://napali.hpl.hp.com/pipermail/gc/attachments/20120102/cc790b9e/attachment.htm


More information about the Gc mailing list