| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Another hole in refcount management, which I noticed while doing commit
3202, and thinking about which led to the insight of commit 3212.
Now the summary of commit 3197 is modified to this:
Update refcounts of products after every instruction, EXCEPT:
a) when instruction is a non-primitive and the callee starts with
'local-scope' (because it's already not decremented in 'return')
OR:
b) when instruction is primitive 'next-ingredient' or
'next-ingredient-without-typechecking', and its result is saved to a
variable in the default space (because it's already incremented at
the time of the call)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When updating refcounts for a typed segment of memory being copied over
with another, we were only ever using the new copy's data to determine
any tags for exclusive containers. Looks like the right way to do
refcounts is to increment and decrement separately.
Hopefully this is a complete fix for the intermittent but
non-deterministic errors we've been encountering while running the edit/
app.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Fix CI.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When you pass an ingredient to a recipe using 'start-running' it mostly
behaves identically to performing a regular function call. However, if
the calling function completed before the new routine had a chance to
run, the ingredients passed in ran the risk of being reclaimed.
In response, let's always increment refcounts at the time of a function
call rather than when the ingredients are read inside the callee.
Now the summary of commit 3197 is modified to this:
Update refcounts of products after every instruction, EXCEPT:
a) when instruction is a non-primitive and the callee starts with
'local-scope' (because it's already not decremented in 'return')
OR:
b) when instruction is primitive 'next-ingredient' or
'next-ingredient-without-typechecking'
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|