Garbage collector memory leak "feature"?

[Frits van Bommel]

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.

You say structs should be scanned, but stacks shouldn't. In my 
experience, structs are quite often stored on the stack...

(Unless you meant heap/statically-allocated structs instead of structs 
in general)