A smaller GC benchmark

[Robert Fraser]

Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:48:00 +0200, Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, I don't think non-moving GCs will ever be able to outperform a
>> well-tuned generational collector. But I'm not exactly in the know about
>> these things, so I may be wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure if generational collectors are moving GCs, but since you're comparing them to non-moving GCs I'll add that a moving GC needs full knowledge of type information to work properly. While confusing an integer for a pointer may be a forgiveable mistake for non-moving GCs, it's not for a moving GC. I think D isn't ready for that yet (especially considered that both Phobos and Tango maintainers/users insist on void[] being a type that's allowed to hold pointers).
> 

How would you make a non-moving generational GC? Isn't the idea of the 
generational GC that long-lived objects are moved into a separate part 
of memory?