[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits |
Date: |
22 Nov 2003 01:31:13 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
> > OTOH, small arrays are already inefficient (because each array, no matter
> > how small, is added to the memory-map (a binary tree) used for conservative
> > stack marking). So maybe we should begin by changing the handling of small
> > arrays (similar to what is done for strings, although I'm not quite sure
> > what it would look like).
>
> Of course, an alternative would be to switch to BoehmGC.
Sure, but is it a better alternative? And why?
How does that remove the dependency on (non-aligned) mallocs?
I can understand your changes in the scope of the current GC scheme(s).
Adding another one together with your changes doesn't seem necessary to me.
> Dave Love has started work on this and it would be interesting to see
> how it works out in practice (what kind of impact it has on memory
> footprint and CPU usage).
What is the status of that effort? Dave?
IMHO, this is not a user-visible change, so I think we have more
important things to work on.
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- tags in the 3 lowest bits, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/19
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Kim F. Storm, 2003/11/19
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/20
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/21
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits,
Kim F. Storm <=
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, David Kastrup, 2003/11/21
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Kim F. Storm, 2003/11/21
- Re: tags in the 3 lowest bits, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/23