Re: New binaries

Hi John,
Actually, I don't think so. I wasn't referring to forking the
codebase, though I can see how my comment could have been interpreted
that way. I was assuming from Dave's use of fork() that he was
referring to forking an OS (Unix) process rather than creating a
Smalltalk Process by forking a block, and I was wondering why he
wanted to do that in the context of the Strongtalk VM.

Regards, talksmall

On Dec 31, 10:02=A0pm, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:32 PM, talksmall <[email protected]> =
wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 7:53=A0pm, Dave Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, the memory-footprint/image-size isn't my primary concern,
> >> although anything that got moved-around/garbage-collected and hence
> >> would bump actual memory usage following a fork() would be an issue.
>
> > Well, regardless of whether or not things get moved around, a full
> > garbage collection will write to every page in object memory that
> > contains part of an object accessible from the roots. The garbage
> > collector involves inverting every oop (pointer to an object) during
> > the mark phase. What is your interest in forking the VM?
>
> I think you are using "fork" in two different senses: Dave in the
> sense of forking processes, Stephen in the sense of forking codebases.
>
> Yours for improved communication,
>
> --
> GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine athttp://www.ccil=
.org/~cowan/signatures

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to strongtalk-general+unsubscrib=
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strong=
talk-general?hl=3Den.