Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
419
edits
JavaScript:SpiderMonkey:GC Futures: Difference between revisions
JavaScript:SpiderMonkey:GC Futures (view source)
Revision as of 16:23, 1 October 2009
, 1 October 2009→JS GC Futures
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
** Need write barrier, efficient auto-temp-value rooting [bug NNNNNNN] | ** Need write barrier, efficient auto-temp-value rooting [bug NNNNNNN] | ||
** No naked argv[i] writes [bug NNNNNNN] | ** No naked argv[i] writes [bug NNNNNNN] | ||
** Conservative stack scanning to avoid temp-value rooting overheads? [bug | ** Conservative stack scanning to avoid temp-value rooting overheads? [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=516832|bug 516832] | ||
*** Andreas and Brendan think this is likely best (safety, clean code) | *** Andreas and Brendan think this is likely best (safety, clean code) | ||
*** Equivalent to well-used (i.e. seldom-used) pinning API in effect but contained: | *** Equivalent to well-used (i.e. seldom-used) pinning API in effect but contained: | ||
**** GC from shallow stack | **** GC from shallow stack | ||
**** clear event loop locals that might entrain garbage | **** clear event loop locals that might entrain garbage | ||
*** | *** Resolved: we are doing this, it is safer by design, false positives are few, code is cleaner/simpler | ||
* GC safety static analysis | * GC safety static analysis | ||
* Write barrier for all code including JITted code | * Write barrier for all code including JITted code | ||