[Gc] Re: [bdwgc] Add disclaim callback and a "finalized" object
ivmai at mail.ru
Wed Jan 25 10:50:30 PST 2012
I don't mind, I think a client would rarely need many object kind.
The opposite (documenting that cd is GC-invisible) - I don't like since other "cd" (in other APIs, e.g., in normal finalization) are scanned by GC. This would require a separate table of "cd" (for every kind) and GC_push_all for that table.
So, to repeat, your idea about cd removal seems to me the best solution (it's ok to change the API as was added after the latest GC release).
25 2012, 22:09 Petter Urkedal <reply+i-1676083-23a7200ee85ed491d4b78d17b755365da52f4e23-460469 at reply.github.com>:
> Good catch, I didn't notice that GC_obj_kinds were excluded from the root set. I think documenting may be ok, since object kinds is something one sets up once and for all, so one may use uncollected or static storage. In fact, it wouldn't be that bad to remove the cd for the same reason, and let client code use a separate entry point for each object kind if needed. Do you have an opinion?
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
More information about the Gc