Re: [Squeak-VMdev] Versiojn 4 changes

[Andreas R. <and...@gm...>]

Which reminds about something totally unrelated but potentially *hugely*
helpful:

How about if we disable GC in primitives?

This idea came back recently when we were talking about chasing GC
problems - I don't even want to know how many places we have that aren't GC
safe. And I wonder if it's even worthwhile to do this in primitives. If it
is, we could still have a flag that basically "turns GC back on" (and this
could be the default for quick-indexed primitives). Or maybe we just turn it
off for any kind of named primitives.

Thoughts?

  - Andreas

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Piumarta" <ian...@in...>
To: "Andreas Raab" <and...@gm...>
Cc: <squ...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Squeak-VMdev] Versiojn 4 changes


> On 08 Apr 2004, at 02:39, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
> > Which reminds of something else we were talking about in the past:
> > Passing
> > primitive arguments as C arguments instead of the Smalltalk stack.
>
> Which reminds me of something else Dan & I talked about in the past:
> evaluating arguments from right to left.  Saves an awful lot of tedious
> peeking into the middle of the stack to pick up the receiver.
> (Combined with the above, potentially wins Really Big for 386 too.
> OTOH, the tradeoffs for register architectures are a little more
> complex.)
>
> Cheers,
> Ian
>