[Vm-dev] gcc -Wall -pedantic (was: sweep failed to find exact end of memory)

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Apr 25 16:48:55 UTC 2007

Hi David -

Looking over your changes I see two consistent patterns: One is to 
change all oops from sqInt to usqInt and the other one is to use the 
"special" unsigned comparison for pointers. Is my interpretation 
essentially correct?

A related issue: It bothers me greatly how complex all of this stuff has 
become. The whole 32/64bit conversion (oopForPointer: etc) and now 
pointer comparisons (no longer using < or >) makes me wonder of how 
sustainable this is. Even I can't recall all the rules that have to be 
followed to write clean 32/64/2GB barrier code. I wish we had a way of 
getting back to a set of simpler rules... any ideas anyone? The one idea 
that I can think of immediately would be to support types in slang 
better and have a specific slang compiler which can (for example) catch 
signed/unsigned comparisons when you write them.

I'm open for any suggestions on how to improve this situation.

   - Andreas

David T. Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0700, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Wow. Nice work. I can't speak for the others but since we have the 
>> problem very practically at Qwaq I'd be willing to test drive these 
>> changes for a while and see if they fix the problems. The best way to do 
>> this would probably be to post change sets to this list (this allows me 
>> to go over them method by method more easily).
> I posted the change sets under the subject line "VM patches for oop
> comparison and usqInt declarations".
>> Thanks for all the work!
> Thanks for reviewing and test driving them. I hope they solve the problem.
> Dave

More information about the Vm-dev mailing list