Skip to content

Conversation

@pull
Copy link

@pull pull bot commented Aug 8, 2025

See Commits and Changes for more details.


Created by pull[bot] (v2.0.0-alpha.3)

Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )

byroot and others added 13 commits August 7, 2025 21:00
The `p->field = rb_gc_location(p->field)` isn't ideal because it means all
references are rewritten on compaction, regardless of whether the referenced
object has moved. This isn't good for caches nor for Copy-on-Write.

`rb_gc_mark_and_move` avoid needless writes, and most of the time allow to
have a single function for both marking and updating references.
The `p->field = rb_gc_location(p->field)` isn't ideal because it means all
references are rewritten on compaction, regardless of whether the referenced
object has moved. This isn't good for caches nor for Copy-on-Write.

`rb_gc_mark_and_move` avoid needless writes, and most of the time allow to
have a single function for both marking and updating references.
The `p->field = rb_gc_location(p->field)` isn't ideal because it means all
references are rewritten on compaction, regardless of whether the referenced
object has moved. This isn't good for caches nor for Copy-on-Write.

`rb_gc_mark_and_move` avoid needless writes, and most of the time allow to
have a single function for both marking and updating references.
The `p->field = rb_gc_location(p->field)` isn't ideal because it means all
references are rewritten on compaction, regardless of whether the referenced
object has moved. This isn't good for caches nor for Copy-on-Write.

`rb_gc_mark_and_move` avoid needless writes, and most of the time allow to
have a single function for both marking and updating references.
The `p->field = rb_gc_location(p->field)` isn't ideal because it means all
references are rewritten on compaction, regardless of whether the referenced
object has moved. This isn't good for caches nor for Copy-on-Write.

`rb_gc_mark_and_move` avoid needless writes, and most of the time allow to
have a single function for both marking and updating references.
The `p->field = rb_gc_location(p->field)` isn't ideal because it means all
references are rewritten on compaction, regardless of whether the referenced
object has moved. This isn't good for caches nor for Copy-on-Write.

`rb_gc_mark_and_move` avoid needless writes, and most of the time allow to
have a single function for both marking and updating references.
The `p->field = rb_gc_location(p->field)` isn't ideal because it means all
references are rewritten on compaction, regardless of whether the referenced
object has moved. This isn't good for caches nor for Copy-on-Write.

`rb_gc_mark_and_move` avoid needless writes, and most of the time allow to
have a single function for both marking and updating references.
This is a counterpoint to the Immediate type and it represents all BasicObject subclasses except for the several immediate objects.

If we know something is a HeapObject, we know we can treat it as an RBasic pointer.
ZJIT: Remove GC offsts overwritten by invalidation
Replace `rb_yarv_class_of` call with:
- a constant check for special constants (nil, fixnums, symbols, etc)
- a check for false
- direct memory read at offset 8 for regular heap objects for the class check
* Skip assertion when cc->klass is Qundef
* Invalidate CCs when cme is invalidated in marking
* Add additional assertions that CC references stay valid

Co-authored-by: Peter Zhu <peter@peterzhu.ca>
* ZJIT: Remove the need for unwrap() on with_num_bits()

* Fix arm64 tests

* Track the caller of with_num_bits

Co-authored-by: Alan Wu <XrXr@users.noreply.github.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Alan Wu <XrXr@users.noreply.github.com>
@pull pull bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 8, 2025
@pull pull bot added the ⤵️ pull label Aug 8, 2025
@pull pull bot merged commit 4fef875 into turkdevops:master Aug 8, 2025
1 of 2 checks passed
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants