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 19:00:07 +0300 Message-ID: <86tth119bs.fsf@gnu.org> References: <878qyeffjh.fsf@localhost> <8734olzlws.fsf@gmail.com> <867cdx32e3.fsf@gnu.org> <864j912t0s.fsf@gnu.org> <86zfqt1cxa.fsf@gnu.org> <86y16d1aik.fsf@gnu.org> 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="3476"; 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 18:01:53 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 1sQUKm-0000iS-Cx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 18:01:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sQUJK-0002cX-Oy; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 12:00:22 -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 1sQUJI-0002a5-He for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 12:00:20 -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 1sQUJH-00032o-80; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 12:00:19 -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=WoWDNemQDEpg2POzu2OaIFO2pLe3SYhmT2mtZqQ+xAU=; b=X62o4Ua8caCLrtnB86VH wqpFpX14RRAhaC06m/jSV81wKMCn140u8zKs5R9NK9wcs7KSjGzE2kiLvZTIp1A/bf9/QMXnSXjr3 cFvfj8cB1vcWyrh4eSZZPj1VwDgW6vREJeJX4uXZPGKiHdtDWQMqr4yRyMxN1tvnXZUbFKyA3sjws qXTlMrrt6QZ+9rQsM4vABhl6wN8NFcT9/azrthdbm9d0F9pPj4hqgR1Mz6uXkwOdQNSp9BheVANFy zJKwXVl7toremwlWax98R5Ds3TSCzbqT4B0Y67Q09O6SwBY+Aj8klJaTpcrwKN9FvMHdtWc66PU4r F2otsvsk3vcPew==; In-Reply-To: (message from Gerd =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= on Sun, 07 Jul 2024 17:36:18 +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:321501 Archived-At: > From: Gerd Möllmann > Cc: pipcet@protonmail.com, eller.helmut@gmail.com, yantar92@posteo.net, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 17:36:18 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Gerd Möllmann > >> Cc: pipcet@protonmail.com, eller.helmut@gmail.com, yantar92@posteo.net, > >> emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 16:52:15 +0200 > >> > >> Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> > >> >> It starts with the root of a tree becoming unreachable, say a string's > >> >> intervals become unreachable because the string is unreachable. By that, > >> >> the root's children are unreachable and so on. > >> > > >> > I thought about the case where the string or the buffer are still > >> > alive, but some of their intervals are no longer used because of > >> > changes in the text properties. > >> > >> Isn't that similar? In that case, no root and not other node in the tree > >> has a reference to the interval in question, so it's unreachable. > > > > It's a C struct, not a Lisp object, so I'm not sure I understand what > > you are saying here. It sounds like we are having a misunderstanding. > > Looks like we do. References in igc can be pointers and Lisp_Objects. > Maybe that's the misunderstanding? But does igc know that an interval is no longer needed? How does it know that when sweep_intervals in the old GC needed to do that explicitly in C?