www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - -v1 doesn't assume std.gc.setV1_0()

reply "Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> writes:
Should -v1 assume std.gc.setV1_0()? I don't believe it does.

Some objects in some of my programs are being collected too early unless I  
call std.gc.setV1_0(). I don't believe I'm doing any pointer voodoo  
either, but it's possible.

Perhaps as a compromise, -v1 could assume std.gc.setV1_0() as long as the  
new GC isn't considered stable.
Feb 21 2007
parent reply Tyler Knott <tywebmail mailcity.com> writes:
Chris Miller wrote:

 Should -v1 assume std.gc.setV1_0()? I don't believe it does.
 
 Some objects in some of my programs are being collected too early unless 
 I call std.gc.setV1_0(). I don't believe I'm doing any pointer voodoo 
 either, but it's possible.
 
 Perhaps as a compromise, -v1 could assume std.gc.setV1_0() as long as 
 the new GC isn't considered stable.


The only change in the post-1.0 GC is that it doesn't scan numeric types for 
pointers (e.g. uint[]).  Are you sure you're not storing the
pointers/references 
in a numeric type somewhere?  If you aren't, then try to create a test case and 
file a bug report at http://d.puremagic.com/issues/  The last bugs with the new 
GC should have been fixed in DMD 1.004/GDC 0.22.
Feb 21 2007
parent reply "Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> writes:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:06:56 -0500, Tyler Knott <tywebmail mailcity.com>  
wrote:


 Chris Miller wrote:

 Should -v1 assume std.gc.setV1_0()? I don't believe it does.
  Some objects in some of my programs are being collected too early  
 unless I call std.gc.setV1_0(). I don't believe I'm doing any pointer  
 voodoo either, but it's possible.
  Perhaps as a compromise, -v1 could assume std.gc.setV1_0() as long as  
 the new GC isn't considered stable.


 The only change in the post-1.0 GC is that it doesn't scan numeric types  
 for pointers (e.g. uint[]).  Are you sure you're not storing the  
 pointers/references in a numeric type somewhere?  If you aren't, then  
 try to create a test case and file a bug report at  
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/  The last bugs with the new GC should  
 have been fixed in DMD 1.004/GDC 0.22.


By "pointer voodoo" I meant sticking pointers where they don't belong or  
modifying the bits.

"The only change" you refer to had side affects; some of which were fixed,  
not sure if all. I don't think it was as simple as you make it sound to  
be. This is why I don't think it's considered "stable" yet; it just hasn't  
been proven like the old one. You telling me to file a possible bug  
somewhat proves my point.
Feb 24 2007
parent reply Tyler Knott <tywebmail mailcity.com> writes:
Chris Miller wrote:

 "The only change" you refer to had side affects; some of which were 
 fixed, not sure if all. I don't think it was as simple as you make it 
 sound to be. 


The change to the GC *was* non-trivial, true, but on well-behaved code (which
doesn't store pointers anywhere it 
shouldn't), all issues related to that change should have been resolved by DMD
1.005 at the latest.  I searched through 
the D Bugzilla database and there are no open issues related to GC
mis-collecting objects.


 This is why I don't think it's considered "stable" yet; it 
 just hasn't been proven like the old one. You telling me to file a 
 possible bug somewhat proves my point.


Based on the amount of response to your original post, it seems you're
currently the only person still having issues 
with the new GC.  Because the GC is so important to D, any bugs found in it get
fixed very promptly (usually in the next 
release of DMD/Phobos after they're reported).  However, before a bug can be
fixed, it must first be reported with 
enough information for Walter to reproduce and examine it.

If you think you've found a new bug in the new GC, which you likely have if
your code isn't doing "pointer voodoo" (even 
unintentionally), make sure you're using the latest version of DMD and Phobos
(currently 1.007).  If you're using the 
latest DMD, or upgrade and are still experiencing the bug, put together a
simple test case and/or a good description of 
the circumstances where the bug appears and file it in Bugzilla (at
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/), with a high 
priority and severity (because GC problems are).  This won't guarantee that
your issue gets fixed, but it is a very big 
"first step."

Additionally, if you feel that -v1 should imply std.gc.setV1_0() then you
should also file a bug report with a low 
severity.  I do think this would be a good compiler enhancement, but it's
neither critical nor will it fix your problem 
with the new GC (which is the real issue here).
Feb 24 2007
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:36:55 -0600, Tyler Knott wrote:


 Chris Miller wrote:

 "The only change" you refer to had side affects; some of which were 
 fixed, not sure if all. I don't think it was as simple as you make it 
 sound to be. 


 
 The change to the GC *was* non-trivial, true, but on well-behaved code (which
doesn't store pointers anywhere it 
 shouldn't), all issues related to that change should have been resolved by DMD
1.005 at the latest.  I searched through 
 the D Bugzilla database and there are no open issues related to GC
mis-collecting objects.
 

 This is why I don't think it's considered "stable" yet; it 
 just hasn't been proven like the old one. You telling me to file a 
 possible bug somewhat proves my point.


 
 Based on the amount of response to your original post, it seems you're
currently the only person still having issues 
 with the new GC.  Because the GC is so important to D, any bugs found in it
get fixed very promptly (usually in the next 
 release of DMD/Phobos after they're reported).  However, before a bug can be
fixed, it must first be reported with 
 enough information for Walter to reproduce and examine it.
 
 If you think you've found a new bug in the new GC, which you likely have if
your code isn't doing "pointer voodoo" (even 
 unintentionally), make sure you're using the latest version of DMD and Phobos
(currently 1.007).  If you're using the 
 latest DMD, or upgrade and are still experiencing the bug, put together a
simple test case and/or a good description of 
 the circumstances where the bug appears and file it in Bugzilla (at
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/), with a high 
 priority and severity (because GC problems are).  This won't guarantee that
your issue gets fixed, but it is a very big 
 "first step."
 
 Additionally, if you feel that -v1 should imply std.gc.setV1_0() then you
should also file a bug report with a low 
 severity.  I do think this would be a good compiler enhancement, but it's
neither critical nor will it fix your problem 
 with the new GC (which is the real issue here).



Umm...  Chris Miller is one of D language forefathers.  I think he knows
all this. ;)

-JJR
Feb 24 2007
parent Tyler Knott <tywebmail mailcity.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:


 Umm...  Chris Miller is one of D language forefathers.  I think he knows
 all this. ;)
 
 -JJR


Oh, I didn't realize.  I didn't start following the community very closely
until just before 1.0.
Feb 24 2007