[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:42:56 +0000 |
On 18 Feb 2010, at 10:33, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2010, at 09:09, Fred Kiefer wrote:
>
>> base/NSNumber/basic.m:
>> FAIL: Object 0 of class 'NSNumber' is retained by copy with other zone
>
>
> This one is mine, but I'm not certain that the behaviour it is expecting is
> correct. Shouldn't copyWithZone: in a different zone always result in a real
> copy? Not doing this makes zones somewhat useless.
I think zones *are* somewhat useless...
There are a *lot* of cases where OSX Foundation does not honor them.
They are unused when garbage collecting is enabled anyway.
Also, I strongly suspect that modern computer cache designs mean that the
supposed benefit of zones (being able to allocate a group of objects close
together in physical memory) has mostly been a fiction for many years now.
- Compiler warnings with the new base code, Fred Kiefer, 2010/02/15
- Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2010/02/15
- Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code, Fred Kiefer, 2010/02/18
- Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code, Fred Kiefer, 2010/02/18
- Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code, David Chisnall, 2010/02/18
- Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code,
Richard Frith-Macdonald <=
- Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code, David Chisnall, 2010/02/18
- Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2010/02/18
- Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code, David Chisnall, 2010/02/18
- Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2010/02/18
Re: Compiler warnings with the new base code, icicle, 2010/02/16