On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:54:10 +0300, Weed <[email protected]> wrote:
naryl пишет:
Weed Wrote:
naryl яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН:
Weed Wrote:
BCS яПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПН:
Yes you can be
very careful in keeping track of pointers (not practical) or use
smart
pointers and such (might end up costing more than GC)
I am do not agree: GC overexpenditure CPU or memory. Typically, both.
I wouldn't be so sure about CPU:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=gdc&lang2=gpp&box=1
You should not compare benchmarks - they depend on the quality of the
testing code.
Then find a way to prove that GC costs more CPU time than explicit
memory management and/or reference counting.
I suggest that reference counting for -debug.
Yes, it slows down a bit. As invariant{}, in{}, out(){}, assert()
Yeah, ref-count your objects in debug and let the memory leak in release!
