about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/074wait.cc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 4179 - experiment: rip out memory reclamationKartik K. Agaram2018-01-031-8/+6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I have a plan for a way to avoid use-after-free errors without all the overheads of maintaining refcounts. Has the nice side-effect of requiring manual memory management. The Mu way is to leak memory by default and build tools to help decide when and where to expend effort plugging memory leaks. Arguably programs should be distributed with summaries of their resource use characteristics. Eliminating refcount maintenance reduces time to run tests by 30% for `mu edit`: this commit parent mu test: 3.9s 4.5s mu test edit: 2:38 3:48 Open questions: - making reclamation easier; some sort of support for destructors - reclaiming local scopes (which are allocated on the heap) - should we support automatically reclaiming allocations inside them?
* 4104Kartik K. Agaram2017-11-031-3/+3
| | | | | Stop hardcoding Max_depth everywhere; we had a default value for a reason but then we forgot all about it.
* 3991 - start work on making continuations safeKartik K. Agaram2017-09-101-0/+601
Plan: 1. Fix a hole where addresses are shared between routines when passed in as arguments to `start-running`. 2. Switch to a new approach to refcount management: instead of updating refcounts when writing products of instructions by default, increment refcounts inside instructions by default and decrement refcounts in caller. More details in future when I actually implement this. 3. Now we shouldn't need a distinction between `new-default-space` and `local-scope`, and all functions can simply decrement refcounts of their default-space, consistently handling any refcounts in the space. At this point if all goes well, continuations should be safe! This commit is just preparation for step 1.