Re: scratch/igc: Implications of MPS being asynchronous

[Stefan Kangas]

Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com> writes:

> In general, I think "asynchronous", "synchronous", or "concurrent" are
> unlikely to be useful terms, since there are competing definitions.

I agree.

> The "don't make no-GC assumptions" rule is vitally important, it's a
> major difference to traditional GC, and it needs to be documented.
> Thanks for doing so.

Well, there are some conflicting ideas here, and it's not necessarily
easy to reconcile them while also writing something useful.  :-)

Could everyone please take a look at the attached patch (now a bit
longer) and see if it matches their understanding?  Thanks!

0001-Document-when-GC-happens-with-IGC.patch
Description: Text Data