[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: deferred deallocation of local objects

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: deferred deallocation of local objects
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:12:07 +0100

On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 06:14 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:

On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 10:17 PM, Alexander Malmberg wrote:

out a way of fixing it properly has been on my TODO list for a while,
but it has been blocked by other things.

Me too... I'm still stumped.

Oops ... I think there is a tendency to take me too literally ...
What I mean is, I've considered and dismissed a lot of ideas (some of which
I've mentioned) and can't see any easy solution.

Ideally I think we need to redesign how retain/release works across DO
with documentation etc. I don't think it's currently clear exactly how this
operates and should operate.

We need a simple, clear retain/release scheme, which is still reasonably
efficient ... ie more sophisticated than sending individual retain/release
messages between processes.

This would be the ideal both for clarity and possibly minor performance
improvements, but doing this *and* maintaining backward compatibility
would be difficult.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]