manual memory management

Timon Gehr timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Sat Jan 12 13:52:01 PST 2013


On 01/09/2013 08:33 AM, Rob T wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 07:23:57 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 07:22:51 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> Well, you CAN indeed, create a dumbed down language that is memory
>>> safe and don't require a GC.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's 1 of my 2 points.
>>
>>
>> The other one you still ignored: the GC doesn't bring much to the
>> table. (Re C# Java etc.)
>
> There is a point being made here that is perfectly valid. There is a
> form of memory leak that a GC can never catch, such as when when memory
> is allocated and simply never deallocated by mistake due to a persistent
> "in use" pointer that should have been nulled but wasn't.
> ...

This is not entirely accurate. A GC does not necessarily have to assume 
that every reachable pointer will be accessed again. Every memory leak 
can be caught by some GC, but no GC catches all.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list