Skip to content

Conversation

@d-netto
Copy link
Member

@d-netto d-netto commented Jul 22, 2024

Other GC implementations may not want to necessarily segregate small objects into object pools (e.g. may just want to allocate everything with Libc malloc).

Let's rename pool_alloc to small_alloc to make it a bit more general in the sense that although we're exposing different allocation functions, we make no mention to the fact that they're using object pools under the hood.

@d-netto d-netto added the GC Garbage collector label Jul 22, 2024
@d-netto d-netto requested a review from kpamnany July 22, 2024 16:53
@d-netto
Copy link
Member Author

d-netto commented Jul 22, 2024

CC: @fingolfin.

I don't think this breaks anything in Oscar et al., but please let me know if it's not the case.

@d-netto d-netto force-pushed the dcn-rename-pool-alloc branch 2 times, most recently from ac3abbf to 1787c81 Compare July 22, 2024 17:51
@d-netto d-netto requested a review from gbaraldi July 22, 2024 19:13
Copy link
Member

@kpamnany kpamnany left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Feels like there's more to be done in this PR -- I've commented on a few additional changes that I think would be good to have. I'm a little concerned that we might have inconsistencies in the codebase with a partial change. Interested to see other reviews.

@d-netto d-netto force-pushed the dcn-rename-pool-alloc branch 4 times, most recently from 46ab7a2 to 1c22b75 Compare July 22, 2024 20:03
@d-netto d-netto force-pushed the dcn-rename-pool-alloc branch from 1c22b75 to a3c8cfa Compare July 22, 2024 20:05
@d-netto d-netto merged commit fe207c5 into master Jul 23, 2024
@d-netto d-netto deleted the dcn-rename-pool-alloc branch July 23, 2024 14:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

GC Garbage collector

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants