On 12/18/11 5:22 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 23:13:03 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/18/11 4:53 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 20:32:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
That is an interesting opportunity. At any rate, I am 100% convinced
precise GC is the only way to go, and I think I've convinced Walter to
a good extent as well.
Sacrificing something (performance, executable size) for something else
is not an unilateral improvement.
I think we can do a lot toward improving the footprint and performance
of a precise GC while benefitting of its innate advantages.
Still, a more conservative GC will always outperform a more precise one
in scanning speed.
I'm not sure. I seem to recall discussions with pathological cases when
large regions of memory were scanned for no good reason.
Without knowing the price, it would be unwise to jump
into it without even considering the possibility of leaving a choice.
Sure.
I am not against the idea, but I believe that more research is needed
before rash decisions are taken. If the performance penalty turns out to
be insignificant, then choice would be pointless. And if there will be a
considerable performance gap, the "burden" of choice (compiler
switch/boolean runtime setting + maintenance costs) could be worth it.
I ordered the GC book :o).
Andrei
