A benchmark, mostly GC
Timon Gehr
timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Sun Dec 11 13:26:32 PST 2011
On 12/11/2011 10:13 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> Le 11/12/2011 21:55, Timon Gehr a écrit :
>> On 12/11/2011 07:02 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> Le 11/12/2011 16:43, Dejan Lekic a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> It would be really great to implement a generational GC similar to the
>>>> C4 mentioned in this presentation:
>>>> http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Understanding-Java-Garbage-Collection
>>>>
>>>> . There is a research-paper about C4 as well:
>>>> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1993491 .
>>>
>>> This GC (like all compacting GC) require that the GC knows what is a
>>> reference/pointer and what isn't.
>>>
>>> This is possible in D using the compile time reflexion to build a
>>> runtime reflexion. But the standard lib is far away from that. This will
>>> also bloat the executable with reflexion's data, thing that some don't
>>> want.
>>
>> The information has to be generated by the compiler, not by the library.
>>
>
> This is not the way choosen by D. And the way choosen by D is, IMO,
> supperior.
>
> D choosed to have compiler time reflexion, but no runtime reflexion
> (compiler won't generate it). Given that, and the great capability of D
> for generic programming, the best solution is to generate information at
> using compile time reflexion using a lib, to get runtime reflexion.
>
> Many application do not want the bloat created by runtime reflexion.
> This is up to the user to compile with such a lib or not.
We are talking about supporting precise GC, not about custom runtime
reflection. There is no way to get precise GC right without compiler
support.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list