[#60404] is RB_GC_GUARD needed in rb_io_syswrite? — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I haven't gotten it to crash as-is, but it seems like we need to
4 messages
2014/02/01
[#60682] volatile usages — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Hi all, I went ahead and removed some use of volatile which were once
5 messages
2014/02/13
[#60794] [RFC] rearrange+pack vtm and time_object structs — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Extracted from addendum on top of Feature #9362 (cache-aligned objects).
4 messages
2014/02/16
[#61139] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9577] [Open] [PATCH] benchmark/driver.rb: align columns in text output — normalperson@...
Issue #9577 has been reported by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/02/28
[ruby-core:61036] Re: is RB_GC_GUARD needed in rb_io_syswrite?
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2014-02-24 01:19:50 UTC
List:
ruby-core #61036
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote: > Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote: > > And we, ko1 an I, have talked whether we can guarantee that arguments > > of cfunc should be marked, today. > > Did you come up with any conclusion? Ping? > I've also been thinking about exporting dispose_string() (from parse.y) > to wider use, maybe even public C API. Using that would give both GC > safety and reduce memory use. I cannot think of anything compatible other than using manual management/guard right now :< I suppose using RB_GC_GUARD in more places makes switching to a precise GC easier. In the face of stronger compiler/linker optimizations, I wonder if precise and conservative GCs end up being equal in difficulty-of-use.