Garbage collector memory leak "feature"?

[Frits van Bommel]

Frits van Bommel wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:44:04 +0300, Frits van Bommel 
>>> <fvbommel at remwovexcapss.nl> wrote:
> [apparently snipped by Bill]
>>>
>>> The question is, however: is conservative scanning of the stack that 
>>> bad? IMO, it's much less problematic just to tell the user to store 
>>> large amounts of pseudo-random/pointer-like data in the heap or in 
>>> static arrays (data segment).
>>
>> My thinking exactly.  Seems like figuring out how to get classes and 
>> structs with pointers to not scan as all pointers is where the bigger 
>> payoff lies.  Stacks don't usually contain much pointer-like random 
>> data I wouldn't think.

For got to mention: I do agree that the heap should be considered a 
priority. I just think that after that, the stack is the next logical 
target[1].
Not having pointer information for the stack may significantly impede a 
moving collector.


[1] Though static data is probably simpler to implement since it's, 
well, static.