Has anyone ever tested CDGC (Concurrent D GC)?

[Masahiro Nakagawa]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:25:58 +0900, Robert Jacques <sandford at jhu.edu>  
wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:19:09 -0400, Masahiro Nakagawa  
> <repeatedly at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:57:47 +0900, Trass3r <un at known.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am interested in Concurrent GC.
>>>>
>>>> But, I have a question about CDGC.
>>>> AFAIK, other language runtimes use thread for concurrent processing.
>>>> Why use fork()? What is the merit of fork() approach?
>>>
>>> I don't know.
>>> On Windows you can't use fork anyway and we have to figure out an
>>> alternative way.
>>>
>>> Maybe he explains it in his thesis, but it's only available in Spanish:
>>> http://www.llucax.com.ar/proj/dgc/index.html
>>
>> Thanks for the link!
>> But, I didn't read Spanish...
>>
>
> snapshot GC

I have heard this by "A Real-Time Garbage Collection for Java using  
Snapshot Algorithm".
I understand a basic mechanism(above article uses a thread instead of  
fork()).
Hmm... I want to see a comparison of fork() and thread.

> There are two other alternative, modern GCs that I know of which fit  
> system programming languages like D. One used a kernel patch to trap  
> hardware writes efficiently, allowing one to bolt a traditional  
> concurrent GC onto a system's language. Which, while cool, isn't  
> practical until OS APIs support it out of the box. The other is  
> thread-local GCs, which according to Apple, have roughly equivalent  
> performance to existing concurrent GCs. Given shared and immutable,  
> thread-local GC's make a lot of sense for D and can be combined with  
> other concurrent options should they be/become available.

I didn't know the former. Thanks for the information.

Latter approach is similar to Erlang.
Erlang provides GC per-process and I like this approach.
Is Thread-local GC in D realistic?
D allows global mutable state...