[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustnes
From: |
Taylor R Campbell |
Subject: |
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustness |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:56:55 +0000 |
User-agent: |
IMAIL/1.21; Edwin/3.116; MIT-Scheme/9.1 |
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:28:25 -0700
From: Joe Marshall <address@hidden>
> Whenever a primitive wants to allocate n words on the heap, it checks
> whether n words are available. If not, it requests n words from the
> garbage collector and backs out to let the garbage collector run. If
> the garbage collector frees n words, Scheme restarts the primitive;
> otherwise, Scheme aborts to the nearest REPL and tells you that it's
> out of memory.
Another solution is to simply punt: if out of memory, don't try to GC,
just abort to nearest. (There are good engineering reasons to do it
this way, actually.)
Er... Then the GC would never run. Maybe you were referring to
something else? Secondary GC daemons?
- [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustness, Taylor R Campbell, 2011/06/16
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustness, Joe Marshall, 2011/06/17
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustness,
Taylor R Campbell <=
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustness, Arthur A. Gleckler, 2011/06/17
- Prev by Date:
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustness
- Next by Date:
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustness
- Previous by thread:
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustness
- Next by thread:
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] primitives, interrupts, allocation, and robustness
- Index(es):