From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MPS: weak hash tables Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 13:47:00 +0300 Message-ID: <867cdx32e3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <878qyeffjh.fsf@localhost> <8734olzlws.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17019"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: pipcet@protonmail.com, eller.helmut@gmail.com, yantar92@posteo.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gerd =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 07 12:47:51 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sQPQr-0004Bz-Ip for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 12:47:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sQPQD-0002ud-3O; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 06:47:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sQPQ9-0002uR-6G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 06:47:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sQPQ8-0001Eb-O8; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 06:47:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=+rdKXwMLpaTOYUcCvklAgzdbRTp8Pu3f5CZbpgaORhA=; b=WDUh/Wk/o5pVcUZElUeJ nwRdJlNQ63OX4pyDU8ArvbCyW4ocICBQDJtR9klfG9BRmcCZ7jWIlJestb94v9e0ySSNKII8ILgR6 jOSh2KzAikZRepWEcIcnmLb7gfHYlJEXrr8/b+IhL+Trq29I6jDdMGlop8mbEGtcEM3Tss+CRNe5t PKgYEXbypqrx2oQD8G6iqEfzUkMUpF3thoeSvVR8Esx4A2OpPRoBBnmqHcSUBnAYmRpfmfirGgg2v W7VMG8ueVlYuPm97ZVXse2GBfgmAcAnUQlXqwSgMgo/e8kL+nSUWbH9MB+zJMIsfC0sJPOTANYEof OcnsOEXkD/rMww==; In-Reply-To: (message from Gerd =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= on Sun, 07 Jul 2024 11:24:11 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:321478 Archived-At: > From: Gerd Möllmann > Cc: Helmut Eller , Ihor Radchenko > , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 11:24:11 +0200 > > Pip Cet writes: > > >> > Hm, maybe we are missing out on something here, in igc. I don't remember > >> > that I balance in igc. > > > > Do we remove intervals at all with igc? It looks to me like they're > > partially-weak objects, effectively, and we scan them strongly, > > removing them only when the buffer dies? > > Balancing only changes the tree structure, without freeing nodes, AFAIR. > But that could be wrong. It's been a long time since I looked closer at > that tree. We free nodes in sweep_intervals.