Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove ref_from from #123

Closed
bandurvp opened this issue Oct 31, 2017 · 8 comments
Closed

Remove ref_from from #123

bandurvp opened this issue Oct 31, 2017 · 8 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@bandurvp
Copy link
Contributor

If the current GC approach is to pass NULL as ref_from then remove it from TVP.

@bandurvp bandurvp added this to the v0.1.18 milestone Oct 31, 2017
@bandurvp bandurvp self-assigned this Oct 31, 2017
@bandurvp
Copy link
Contributor Author

@peterwvj can you confirm whether there is any situation currently where the code generator emits anything other than NULL as the from parameter to GC calls?

@peterwvj
Copy link
Member

@bandurvp it should all be contained in the GC transformation yes.

@bandurvp
Copy link
Contributor Author

Right, and in there there is no case in which it emits something like &res instead of NULL?

@peterwvj
Copy link
Member

I'm pretty sure we got rid of all of that at one point. We only pass NULL.

@bandurvp
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @peterwvj , I want to attempt to remove all traces of NULL and ref_from from the garbage collector if it's not used. You said earlier that it's all in the GC transformation. What I plan to do is to temporarily duplicate all the GC operations in the runtime but without the from parameter and then remove the part of the GC transformation that puts in this parameter value. Is there anything else I should conisder?

@peterwvj
Copy link
Member

Hi @bandurvp . I don't think there's anything else to consider, but I could be wrong.

Wouldn't it be better/safer to simply remove the "NULL parameter" from the function definitions in the runtime (rather than duplicating them). Otherwise the approach sounds fine.

@bandurvp
Copy link
Contributor Author

That would be the final approach, I was just thinking that this would be just a way of organizing the change. But if I think about it there isn't really an advantage to it, thanks! I'll let you know how things come out. Can I merge your branch into development and branch from there?

@peterwvj
Copy link
Member

Yes, absolutely 👌

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants