On LLVM’s GC Infrastructure (2013)

Re:On LLVM’s GC Infrastructure (2013) by eschew on Thursday December 04, 2014 @07:53PM (#8702577)

He essentially retracted his original assertion eight months after it was published, see the first few "Update" sections of

http://www.philipreames.com/Blog/2014/02/21/why-not-use-gcro...

and also

http://www.philipreames.com/Blog/2014/10/21/statepoints-vs-g...

"To explicitly state this again since I screwed this up once before, both statepoints and gc.roots can correctly represent relocation semantics in the IR. In fact, the underlying reasoning about their correctness are rather similar."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On LLVM’s GC Infrastructure (2013) by hga on Thursday December 04, 2014 @08:22PM (#8702656)

Argh. I wish he'd used language like "I retract" in the more recent 10/21 post, it got into "weeds" that I was avoiding getting into until he/Team Azul finish their statepoint work. That based on his mistakes with gcroot (granted, I share his goal of high performance precise collection, which is just not in the DNA of C/C++).

And I see the first batch of patches landed today: http://www.philipreames.com/Blog/2014/12/04/statepoint-patch...

[ Parent | on HN ]