On 03/05/2016 01:02 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 03/05/2016 12:49 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
If you're right then you've resolved CS problems dating back to the
50's. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You haven't
provided any evidence.
It wasn't easy to implement but it's done now so we can all move forward.
Replacing our GC with anything else is going to be incredibly difficult.
We aren't going to be compelled by a comparison of our GC to something
else if it isn't in the context of web workloads.
So you're saying it's impossible? Is there a design document I could
start reading?
Regards,
-Phil
(Sorry if I don't reply... it's late)
Believe it or not, I made a mistake in the fast_pool_allocator which
allocates proxies. I wasn't using unitary size which was clogging the
allocator. I fixed it and now block_ptr<> is *faster* than shared_ptr<>:
make:
auto_ptr: 25637845 ns
shared_ptr: 26789342 ns
block_ptr: 50487376 ns
new:
auto_ptr: 23139888 ns
shared_ptr: 48198668 ns
block_ptr: 39151845 ns
So the performance comparison reduces to this. Now it's just a matter
of finding out if block_ptr<> leaks in any way.
Regards,
-Phil
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
