On 25 feb 2005, at 15:49, Marco van de Voort wrote:
- Critical parts are often handoptimized by using a lot of non GCed types
(like int), this is not a typical programming method for these
languages, but outright expert tuning.
Critical paths are also optimized in our compiler to not use ansistrings, because reference counting is also slow.
And I was talking more specific about the Quake II benchmark that was brought. Any tweaks would already be on top of the existing ones in the code.
The argument is not about whether or not we should make Pascal entirely GC'd, but about whether reference counting is better/worse than other garbage collection techniques if you have a significant amount of GC'd objects.
The Quake II benchmark was used to "prove" that full blown (I assume Boehm) GC was not slow. Q II, as tuned app, is probably already using primitive types heavily, thus not a poster child for this benchamark
And the same also applies to functional languages like ocaml and LISP which use primitive types a lot. I am sceptical because every app that I have seen that makes heavy use of *objects* is slow when GC'ed (cf Eclipse compiled with gcj - IE even with no bytecode it is sluggish).
However rather than having endless arguements about this is faster or slower than that what we really need is a benchmark for FPC with some GC'ing if some of the FPC developers are willing to investigate this (which is probably unlikely given they have enough on their plate with FPC 2.0).
jamie.
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
