You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The layout of an "heap" (Storage) type is always identical to the layout of the corresponding "stack" type. E.g. the stack type Student is essentially identical to the heap type StudentStorage.
The design has two separate types because moving a value from/into the heap is not quite trivial: when moving a pointer-to-heap-value out, it must be wrapped in a GCRef, and the referent pinned. When moving a GCRef in, the referent must be unpinned. However I don't think the duplication of types is paying for itself.
Unifying the two types would probably lead to better destructor behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The layout of an "heap" (
Storage
) type is always identical to the layout of the corresponding "stack" type. E.g. the stack typeStudent
is essentially identical to the heap typeStudentStorage
.The design has two separate types because moving a value from/into the heap is not quite trivial: when moving a pointer-to-heap-value out, it must be wrapped in a
GCRef
, and the referent pinned. When moving aGCRef
in, the referent must be unpinned. However I don't think the duplication of types is paying for itself.Unifying the two types would probably lead to better destructor behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: