[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the future of Guile
From: |
Kjetil S. Matheussen |
Subject: |
Re: the future of Guile |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:34:21 +0100 (CET) |
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
>
> "Marco Maggi":
> >
> > 4. If a garbage collector allows to remove the need for
> > "scm_remember_upto_here" it must be adopted even if it
> > makes Guile slower and it raises memory usage a bit (or
> > more than a bit).
>
> If we replace "should" with "must", I agree.
>
> Regarding the HBGC, a few nonscientific tests earlier this year
> showed that HBGC had _much_ lower latency than Guile's garbage
> collector.
>
> I am planning to measure the difference in latency properly
> quite soon, and if what I suspect is correct, that the HBGC
> has significant lower latency, this is another "should"
> for replacing the old one, even if the new one is a little
> bit slower and use a little bit more memory.
>
Oh, and another thing. My tests (available in the guile-devel archives)
also showed that the HBGC version usually use a bit less memory
than Guile's old garbage collector. (Yet another "should"
for replacing. :-) )
- the future of Guile, Marco Maggi, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Stephen Compall, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Ludovic Courtès, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Neil Jerram, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Andy Wingo, 2007/12/05
- Re: the future of Guile, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2007/12/06
- Re: the future of guile, Daniel Llorens del Río, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Marco Maggi, 2007/12/05
- Re: the future of Guile, Mike Gran, 2007/12/05