[Gc] Re: [bdwgc] Export mark-bit manipulation functions. (9d07ead)
urkedal at nbi.dk
Mon Jan 16 13:25:03 PST 2012
It seems reasonable to me. Let me CC to the mailing list in case
someone can think of an argument why these functions should to take a
constant pointer arguments.
On 2012-01-16, Ivan Maidanski wrote:
> There exists some other candidates for constantization: GC_[debug_]end_change_stubborn, GC_exclude_static_roots, GC_add/remove_roots, GC_general_register_disappearing_link(const obj), GC_finalized_malloc. Correct?
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
More information about the Gc