[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: broken GC
From: |
Michael Livshin |
Subject: |
Re: broken GC |
Date: |
16 Aug 2001 19:12:38 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Copyleft) |
Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:
> Also I'm wondering if we do decide to move to a precise GC, would that
> make it more likely that we could incorporate advancements in GC
> algorithms more immediately? Put another way, is it harder, given our
> current setup, to do things like switch to a generational GC (or
> whatever) than it would be if we were using a precise GC?
hmmm.
a (mostly) copying generational GC coupled with conservative stack
scanning is a well-known beast. it's patented, too. the patent
didn't stop the CMUCL people, though.
a non-moving GenGC is a possibility (and something I actually plan to
play with "soon") -- but it remains to be seen how effective that is.
--
Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody can be trusted with their finger on the
button. Nobody's perfect. VOTE FOR NOBODY.
- Re: broken GC, (continued)
- Re: broken GC, Rob Browning, 2001/08/16
- Re: broken GC,
Michael Livshin <=
- Re: broken GC, Miroslav Silovic, 2001/08/17
- Re: broken GC, Michael Livshin, 2001/08/17
- Re: broken GC, Miroslav Silovic, 2001/08/19
- Re: broken GC, Michael Livshin, 2001/08/25
- Re: broken GC, Miroslav Silovic, 2001/08/25