From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Laurynas Biveinis <laurynas.biveinis@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gc-improv] Permanent vs function RTL obstack fix
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinWSR5NM8-F_=eRPr9DWSJEJkoaXw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=MXiUF_giAxj3Z9SsZx75ABgxfYA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Laurynas Biveinis
<laurynas.biveinis@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is certainly true that moving away from GC will make some kinds of
> bugs possible again, but I hope that not enough to be an unmanageable
> concern.
One thing that may help, is to poison parts of released obstacks,
instead of actually releasing the memory. A bit like the poison
mechanism of GGC.
An obstack memory checking mechanism similar to gcac would also be
nice. Something that walks all RTL and verifies that RTX objects are
allocated on the obstacks where you'd expect them to be (via
_obstack_allocated_p).
I don't think GCC had any checking like that 20 years ago...
Ciao!
Steven
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-10 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-07 6:17 Laurynas Biveinis
2011-04-07 21:33 ` Steven Bosscher
2011-04-08 13:22 ` Laurynas Biveinis
2011-04-08 14:36 ` Jeff Law
2011-04-08 14:39 ` Richard Guenther
2011-04-08 14:42 ` Jeff Law
2011-04-09 10:34 ` Steven Bosscher
2011-04-10 18:27 ` Laurynas Biveinis
2011-04-10 18:49 ` Basile Starynkevitch
2011-04-11 20:03 ` Jeff Law
2011-04-12 0:22 ` Mike Stump
2011-04-12 2:54 ` Jeff Law
2011-04-12 6:34 ` Steven Bosscher
2011-04-12 7:01 ` Jakub Jelinek
2011-04-12 8:45 ` Steven Bosscher
2011-04-12 10:44 ` Mike Stump
2011-04-12 10:49 ` Steven Bosscher
2011-04-12 15:02 ` Jeff Law
2011-04-12 11:56 ` Bernd Schmidt
2011-04-12 15:31 ` Jeff Law
2011-04-10 18:23 ` Laurynas Biveinis
2011-04-10 22:33 ` Steven Bosscher [this message]
2011-04-11 20:08 ` Jeff Law
2011-04-12 11:43 ` Laurynas Biveinis
2011-04-12 11:46 ` Laurynas Biveinis
2011-04-12 17:25 ` Mike Stump
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='BANLkTinWSR5NM8-F_=eRPr9DWSJEJkoaXw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=stevenb.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=laurynas.biveinis@gmail.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).