From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1260 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2011 09:34:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 1071 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Apr 2011 09:34:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:34:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p319YWwf016176 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:34:32 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-109.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.109]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p319YSmH027609; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:34:29 -0400 Message-ID: <4D959C24.8030408@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:34:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.39.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: java@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GC leaks debugging References: <4D95909E.4060309@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 On 04/01/2011 10:02 AM, Erik Groeneveld wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:45, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 01/04/11 09:39, Erik Groeneveld wrote: >>> From reading about the >>> GC, I understand that the GC knows what is a pointer and what not >>> because there is type information associated with the Java objects. >>> So I'd expect no black-listing at all. It that a right observation? >> >> No. Objects are scanned precisely, but the stack is not. > > Thanks. I think I can rule the stack out by reviewing/adapting my > test program. I'll do that first. > >> Also, depending >> on your compilation options, the data segments of your program may be >> scanned conservatively. > > I have to think about this one. Which options are you thinking of? -findirect-dispatch With that option, everything except the stack is scanned precisely. However, there is some runtime overhead. Andrew.