Le 11/12/2011 23:31, Timon Gehr a écrit :
On 12/11/2011 11:27 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 11/12/2011 22:26, Timon Gehr a écrit :
On 12/11/2011 10:13 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 11/12/2011 21:55, Timon Gehr a écrit :
On 12/11/2011 07:02 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 11/12/2011 16:43, Dejan Lekic a écrit :
It would be really great to implement a generational GC similar to
the
C4 mentioned in this presentation:
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Understanding-Java-Garbage-Collection
. There is a research-paper about C4 as well:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1993491 .
This GC (like all compacting GC) require that the GC knows what is a
reference/pointer and what isn't.
This is possible in D using the compile time reflexion to build a
runtime reflexion. But the standard lib is far away from that. This
will
also bloat the executable with reflexion's data, thing that some
don't
want.
The information has to be generated by the compiler, not by the
library.
This is not the way choosen by D. And the way choosen by D is, IMO,
supperior.
D choosed to have compiler time reflexion, but no runtime reflexion
(compiler won't generate it). Given that, and the great capability of D
for generic programming, the best solution is to generate
information at
using compile time reflexion using a lib, to get runtime reflexion.
Many application do not want the bloat created by runtime reflexion.
This is up to the user to compile with such a lib or not.
We are talking about supporting precise GC, not about custom runtime
reflection. There is no way to get precise GC right without compiler
support.
It is clearly possible by marking not movable what is possibly pointer
in the stack and registers and some runtime reflexion used by the GC.
In *precise GC* speak, 'possibly pointer' is a banned term. You
understand that? Also compile-time reflection is IMPOSSIBLE if you don't
have the source code. It cannot work in a meaningful way.
GC support must be built-in. Every attempt to make such a fundamental
feature depend on the standard library is comical.
Well, you are the only one here talking about a precise GC. The post you
reponded to was talking about a compacting GC. Which isn't the same.
So please don't go as hominem. I could do the same but it will ends up
nowhere.
