From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Patrick Logan Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful Date: 1998/08/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 379180456 References: <6qfhri$gs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 09:30:19 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In comp.object Robert Dewar wrote: : One time working on the 1108 SPITBOL, we had a case of major heap : corruption, that finally (after looking through several linear feet : of dumps) we realized reflected an error in an imported assembly : language routine, that did not bring things to a grinding halt : till 26 garbage collections later. The small error sort of spread : like a cancer, getting worse on each GC, until it finally crashed. : Now to be fair, this was a mark/sweek/compact collector, and such : collectors are far less robust with respect to this kind of sabotage : than non-compacting collectors. But it is not the intent of a GC to protect the application from these kinds of problems. Mark/sweep is a good choice for some situations. It cannot be criticized for not protecting against something outside its scope. -- Patrick Logan (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com (W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com http://www.gemstone.com