[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gen gc
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: gen gc |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:00:59 +0200 (CEST) |
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Han-Wen wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> > Han-Wen <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > How is this supposed to portable to GenGC?
> > >
> > > SCM_DEFINE (scm_object_address, "object-address", 1, 0, 0,
> > > (SCM obj),
> > > "Return an integer that for the lifetime of @var{obj} is uniquely\n"
> > > "returned by this function for @var{obj}")
> > >
> > > This is used in some of the goops code -- should I retain it?
> >
> > It would be cool if you could fake it. It doesn't need to be the real
> > memory address of the object, just a unique integer.
>
> ?
>
> What if I can't? Memory cells are going to move around. I don't see a
> way to generate a unique number without making some kind of table for
> objects subjected to object-address.
>
> Btw, I can imagine that internal hash tables might use the address of
> a cell as a source for a hash index. Does that happen anywhere?
Look into hash.[ch]. scm_hashq seems to be what you think of.
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann
- Re: gen gc, (continued)
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/07/18
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/18
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Tom Lord, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Marius Vollmer, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc,
Dirk Herrmann <=
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/07/18
- Re: gen gc, Marius Vollmer, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Neil Jerram, 2002/07/20