This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> writes: > > I think the value is good enough. Not the modified object needs to be > > in the root set, but the object that has a new reference to it. > > But each generation has its own pointer of roots to be used when > collecting only younger generations. Which root set does this > pointer get listed in? Suppose I've got three generations: > > 0 youngest > 1 young > 2 old > > And suppose the value being stored is a pointer to an object in > generation 0. If the containing object is in generation 1, then I > must use the extra root pointer when collecting generation 0, but I > can (must?) ignore the extra root pointer when I collect generation > 1 or 2. I don't think that an old generation is collected without simultanously collecting all younger generations, or is it?