[Gc] Re[2]: [bdwgc] Add disclaim callback and a "finalized" object kind (#5)

[Ivan Maidanski]

Hi Petter,

On an occasion, I've launched disclaim_test.c  without -DALL_INTERIOR_POINTERS (for both GC and test) and it failed. I haven't analyzed the reason, right now my question is: Does finalized_malloc feature require ALL_INTERIOR_POINTERS (in this case, please add conditional #error), or just the test require it (then please add GC_set_all_interior_pointers call).

Cmd (that i've launched, I haven't tried it using make):
gcc -I include -DENABLE_DISCLAIM --include extra/gc.c tests/disclaim_test.c 

Regards.

28 09 2011, 22:33 Petter Urkedal <reply+i-1676083-23a7200ee85ed491d4b78d17b755365da52f4e23 at reply.github.com>:
> > 1. Win32 make files - patching is incomplete (you forget to add finalized_mlc.o);
> 
> I just submittet an imitation of how dbg_mlc.{o,c} is listed in various makefiles, I think there were several which applied to Win32.  I noticed that windows-untested, gcj_mlc.c is not listed, not sure whether it as an intended omission.
> 
> > 2. disclaim_bench should be called 3 times (instead of using system);
> 
> Yeah, it a bit ugly.  The reason I did it like that was that a) I wanted to format the table out output nicely and b) I wanted to insulate the runs to make sure no run got an advantage by being first or last.  Not sure what's the best solution:
>   - Add a shell script which invokes the test three times (listed in TESTS in the makefile).
>   - Ignore point b, and run all tests in the same process.
>   - Don't run the benchmark by default.
> 
> > 3. see other FIXMEs in disclaim_bench.c
> 
> Did you see my previous comment:
> 
>   * The clock, clock_t, CLOCKS_PER_SEC, and time symbols are C89 according to http://www.schweikhardt.net/identifiers.html, are there compilers which still don't implement them? If so, I can add the appropriate
> feature-tests to configure.ac and condinionalize this test on them.
> 
> Am I missing anything?
> 
> --
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/ivmai/bdwgc/pull/5#issuecomment-2228569
>