[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: possible garbage collector problem...
- To: <mark>, <tribble>
- Subject: Re: possible garbage collector problem...
- From: Michael McClary <michael>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 89 00:58:26 PDT
- Cc: <heh>, <xanatech>
> From tribble Sun Oct 1 22:54:15 1989
> Return-Path: <tribble>
> Received: by xanadu.xanadu.uucp (4.0/SMI-4.0.2) id AA09741; Sun, 1 Oct 89 22:54:08 PDT
> Date: Sun, 1 Oct 89 22:54:08 PDT
> From: tribble (Eric Dean Tribble)
> Message-Id: <8910020554.AA09741@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: mark
> Cc: heh, xanatech
> In-Reply-To: Mark S. Miller's message of Sun, 1 Oct 89 17:59:43 PDT <8910020059.AA07720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: possible garbage collector problem...
> Status: R
> What if both "g" and "h" were declared
> as returning Strong pointers (not references to strong pointers)? My
> reading of the language definition is that the foo and bar temporaries
> generated as above would then be Strong pointers, and all would be
> well. I'll try this out soon and let you know.
> This was the solution I had in mind. I think it works, but it implies
> that most return values are typed as strong pointers. What happens if
> we cast a wimpy pointer into a strong pointer?