| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'd feared that the refcount errors in the previous commit meant there
was a bug in my ref-counting, so I temporarily used new variables rather
than reusing existing ones. But it turns out the one remaining place
memory corruption can happen is when recipes don't use default-scope and
so end up sharing memory. Don't I have a warning for this?
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Is this a violation of our requirement to always treat ingredients as
immutable? We shouldn't be using it much anyway..
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also start auto-abandoning addresses when their refcount returns to 0.
I'm mixing this auto-abandon support with my earlier/hackier support for
automatically abandoning default-space created by 'local-scope'. We need
to flesh out the story for automatically reclaiming memory using
C++-style destructors.
But that's a value-add. Memory corruption is far more important to avoid
than memory *leaks*.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We don't yet actually maintain the refcount. That's next.
Hardest part of this was debugging the assume-console scenarios in layer
85. That took some detailed manual diffing of traces (because the output
of diff was no good).
New tracing added in this commit add 8% to .traces LoC. Commented out
trace() calls (used during debugging) make that 45%.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the one major refinement on the C programming model I'm planning
to introduce in mu. Instead of Rust's menagerie of pointer types and
static checking, I want to introduce just one new type, and use it to
perform ref-counting at runtime.
So far all we're doing is updating new's interface. The actual
ref-counting implementation is next.
One implication: I might sometimes need duplicate implementations for a
recipe with allocated vs vanilla addresses of the same type. So far it
seems I can get away with just always passing in allocated addresses;
the situations when you want to pass an unallocated address to a recipe
should be few and far between.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I realize that my current doesn't allow nesting a:b:c linear type syntax
inside a dilated property. So you can't currently say:
(recipe address:number)
Need to fix that at some point. Non-trivial since linear syntax is
oblivious to dilated syntax. I should probably make the dilated syntax
more fundamental and introduce it at an earlier layer.
|
|
|
Reorganize layers in preparation for a better way to manage heap
allocations without ever risking use-after-free errors.
|