Allocators (page 2)

On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:40:48 UTC, Namespace wrote: > On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:33:11 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: >> On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:30:01 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >>> I see Andrei running away ! >> >> I see an upcoming drinking game at the next dconf. A shot of whiskey anytime anyone mentions allocators. :P > > Or auto ref. ;) Or shared. Or const. Or scope. Or Object methods. There's quite a few unresolved issues!

On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 17:27:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote: > On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:40:48 UTC, Namespace wrote: >> On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:33:11 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: >>> On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:30:01 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >>>> I see Andrei running away ! >>> >>> I see an upcoming drinking game at the next dconf. A shot of whiskey anytime anyone mentions allocators. :P >> >> Or auto ref. ;) > > Or shared. > > Or const. > > Or scope. > > Or Object methods. > > There's quite a few unresolved issues! Oh, these I've completely forgotten. The most of these are much older than auto ref. :D

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 09:55:05PM +0200, Namespace wrote: > On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 17:27:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote: > >On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:40:48 UTC, Namespace wrote: > >>On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:33:11 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > >>>On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:30:01 UTC, deadalnix wrote: > >>>>I see Andrei running away ! > >>> > >>>I see an upcoming drinking game at the next dconf. A shot of whiskey anytime anyone mentions allocators. :P > >> > >>Or auto ref. ;) > > > >Or shared. > > > >Or const. What's the problem with const again? > >Or scope. Yeah this one is pretty high up on my wishlist right now. But it seems like everybody knows what it should do, but nobody knows how to implement it. > >Or Object methods. Wasn't the latest consensus to get rid of them all? Though it does put the implementation at odds with TDPL... > >There's quite a few unresolved issues! > > Oh, these I've completely forgotten. The most of these are much older than auto ref. :D There's also the new AA implementation, which hasn't progressed in 2 years. :-( T -- IBM = I'll Buy Microsoft!

On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 20:04:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > What's the problem with const again? I'm thinking mainly of const postblit, and the ramifications of solving that. >> >Or Object methods. > > Wasn't the latest consensus to get rid of them all? Though it does put > the implementation at odds with TDPL... Yeah, I think so, but doing so is a really big change!

On Friday, August 23, 2013 13:03:02 H. S. Teoh wrote: > > On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 17:27:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote: > > >Or const. > > What's the problem with const again? Just the issues with it an Object AFAIK. Or Object methods. > > Wasn't the latest consensus to get rid of them all? Though it does put the implementation at odds with TDPL... That's what we agreed on. The problem is implementing the changes. I have a pull for druntime which starts the process for opEquals, but compiler changes are likely to be required to get all of this to work, and we may need the AA implementation to be fixed first as well. So, there are some serious roadblocks. The most recent discussion on it was http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.214.1369617617.13711.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com though it looks like Kenji's reply in that thread was split off: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/7851915.gvRHKl6iG7@lyonel An enterprising compiler dev could probably get us most of the way there pretty quickly though based on some of the ideas in that discussion. I don't know if we can avoid needing to fix the AAs first or not though, and you know better than most of us how much of a mess that is. - Jonathan M Davis

On Friday, August 23, 2013 22:08:40 Peter Alexander wrote: > On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 20:04:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > What's the problem with const again? > > I'm thinking mainly of const postblit, and the ramifications of solving that. Ooh. I keep forgetting about that. That's a big one and is arguably postblit's biggest flaw. - Jonathan M Davis

On 08/23/2013 10:08 PM, Peter Alexander wrote: > On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 20:04:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: >> What's the problem with const again? > > I'm thinking mainly of const postblit, and the ramifications of solving > that. What problem does const postblit have that a const constructor does not have?

August 23, 2013

Re: Allocators

Posted by Dmitry Olshansky
in reply to Brian Rogoff

Permalink

Dmitry Olshansky

Posted in reply to Brian Rogoff

Permalink

23-Aug-2013 18:31, Brian Rogoff пишет:
> On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:27:06 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> I recall from discussion a while back that various custom allocators
>> are in the works as alternatives to the GC.
>>
>> Can anyone advise on their status and give a rough idea of what will
>> be offered?
>
> It seems you're far from being the only interested party!
>
> Has anyone tried porting an existing allocator library from C++? Looking
> over the dconf proceedings, HeapLayers was mentioned as an inspiration
> for a future D allocators library; would a port make sense?
>
> I remember seeing a D2 region allocator, but it appeared to be abandonware.

It works. It has no updates for some time, but there isn't anything wrong with it. It just failed to establish the new allocator scheme so it's just a nice piece of 3rd party library.


> Assuming you have a really great allocator library, how would that work
> with the existing GC requiring features of D? For example, could you
> have all of your slicing, classes, exceptions, etc. handled by a region
> allocator?
>

Hardly (if we are not to forget about @safe), but I assume a thread-local GC would solve a lot of problems.


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

Forums