[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why SUSPEND should not do a GC
- To: ALAN AT MIT-MC at MIT-MC, GSB AT MIT-MC at MIT-MC
- To: HIC AT MIT-MC at MIT-MC, JPG AT MIT-MC at MIT-MC
- To: HENRY AT MIT-AI at MIT-MC, DDM AT MIT-AI at MIT-MC
- To: SJOBRG AT MIT-AI at MIT-MC, MILLER AT MIT-AI at MIT-MC
- Subject: Why SUSPEND should not do a GC
- From: RWK,JONL at MIT-MC
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 80 14:09:00 GMT
- Cc: (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 1 APR 1980 0909-EST
- Sent-by: HMR at MIT-MC
Date: 3 March 1980 19:39-EST
From: Jon L White <JONL at MIT-MC>
Subject: SUSPEND to stop doing a gc
To: ALAN at MIT-MC, GSB at MIT-MC, HIC at MIT-MC, JPG at MIT-MC,
HENRY at MIT-AI, DDM at MIT-AI, SJOBRG at MIT-AI, MILLER at MIT-AI
cc: NIL-I at MIT-MC
(Original note to be found in NIL mail file on MC)
Besides the afore-mentioned reasons for SUSPEND to not do a GC, we've hit
on another: It makes investigating GC related problems a lot easier.
I.e. if you have something which fails after hours of cycles, you can
run up almost to the point of failure, SUSPEND, and debug from there.
You can't do that if it invokes the GC. This just saved me mucho work
debugging a GC-DEAMON hack.