Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM)

Path	csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date	Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:20:43 -0600
Message-ID	<4F58CE49.2080108@SPAM.comp-arch.net> (permalink)
Date	Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:20:41 -0800
From	"Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net>
Reply-To	andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net
Organization	comp-arch.net
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version	1.0
Newsgroups	comp.arch
Subject	Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM)
References	<4F56ECEC.8060800@SPAM.comp-arch.net> <j2dfl7p7h04a7f2vr5n5tg0lhp6mubibvd@4ax.com> <4F58567A.3000605@SPAM.comp-arch.net> <jj9p2i$6ao$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To	<jj9p2i$6ao$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Lines	17
X-Usenet-Provider	http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace	sv3-8t1ixWf6BlkUcGNPE6gErb36gjhVVaHuOLDgIqTqHguGtB59gKY+7jFGiPZL+/Yuypzga+8c36Qnonv!zl+yW1S++wY+0KEQt++8yTzzq3ftu31OAzQdt6mUCHsZ+RmlBmLeV9wN5PVD4Pc=
X-Complaints-To	abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications	http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info	Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info	Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter	1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes	2167
Xref	csiph.com comp.arch:6300

Show key headers only | View raw

On 3/8/2012 12:02 AM, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article<4F58567A.3000605@SPAM.comp-arch.net>,
> Andy (Super) Glew<andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net>  wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 11:55 AM, George Neuner wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Q: what about [[deterministic finalization and aborted transactions]]?)

>> If one only has a single strong pointer, scoped, with other weak
>> pointers, finalize on deallocatin of the strng pointer.
>
> Yes.  Unfortunately, though it is well hidden, one of the implications
> of the modern approach to garbage collection is that most pointers
> should NOT be scoped!  I.e. the lifetime is not lexical, but until
> the last reference disappears - and, as I said, that is in general
> not determinable without a complete, synchronised garbage collection.

Which is the whole pointer of having string and weak pointers.

Thread

Malloc and transactional memory (TM) "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-03-06 21:06 -0800
  Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-03-07 09:54 -0800
    Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-03-09 11:20 -0800
  Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2012-03-07 14:55 -0500
    Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-03-07 21:10 +0000
      Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2012-03-08 14:23 -0500
        Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-03-08 19:58 +0000
          Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2012-03-10 16:05 -0500
            Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-03-13 08:39 +0000
    Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-03-07 22:49 -0800
      Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-03-08 08:02 +0000
        Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-03-08 07:20 -0800
          Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-03-08 16:25 +0000
            Re: Malloc and transactional memory (TM) MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-03-11 09:27 -0700

csiph-web