radical ideas about GC and ARC : need to be time driven?

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 12 May 2014 02:38, Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> Am Sun, 11 May 2014 14:52:50 +1000
> schrieb Manu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>:
>
>> On 11 May 2014 05:39, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
>> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 09:16:54PM +0200, Xavier Bigand via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> >>  - Same question if D migrate to ARC?
>> >
>> > I highly doubt D will migrate to ARC. ARC will probably become
>> > *possible*, but some language features fundamentally rely on the GC, and
>> > I can't see how that will ever be changed.
>>
>> Which ones are incompatible with ARC?
>
> Pass-by-value slices as 2 machine words

64bit pointers are only 40-48 bits, so there's 32bits waste for an
offset... and if the base pointer is 32byte aligned (all allocated
memory is aligned), then you can reclaim another 5 bits there... I
think saving an arg register would probably be worth a shift.
32bit pointers... not so luck :/
video games consoles though have bugger all memory, so heaps of spare
bits in the pointers! :P