What are your hopes for the future D GC

[Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/30/2017 7:54 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:14:41AM +0300, Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 6/29/2017 10:19 PM, Random D user wrote:
>>> I just got curious, after reading the GC analysis blog post. What
>>> kind of features people generally would want for the GC (in the
>>> distant murky future of 1999)?
>>>
>>> Here's some of my nice to haves:
>>>
>>> 1. Thread local GCs. D is by default thread local, so it kind of
>>> would make sense and goodbye stop everything GC.
>>
>> Yes, yes and yes. The moment we fix the spec and code that casts
>> shared to TLS at will.
>
> Hmm.  I'm not familiar with the intricacies of shared; could you
> elaborate on how casting from shared causes problems with a thread-local
> GC?  Or is the problem casting *from* shared?
>
>
> T
>
Seems like my first post went into aether, sorry if double posting.

The problem is generally with transfer of things from one thread to 
another. Currently this is done with good natured casts such as 
assumeUnique. The GC needs to be in the know of what is transferred to who.


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky