d future or plans for d3

[Timon Gehr]

On 12/19/2011 12:11 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 23:02:17 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> It is an unilateral improvement if both options are kept open. I don't
>> see a reason to cease support for the current GC model.
>
> I believe that currently the plan does not include providing this choice.
>

That would strike me as odd. Andrei/Walter?

>> Furthermore, a generational GC performs much better than a simple
>> mark-sweep GC.
>
> Unless you change the way references work, generational and "precise"
> aspects of a GC are orthogonal.

You are right. I have had in mind a generational GC that uses a copying 
collector for the nursery as this is what most state-of-the-art VM GCs do.

> Also, D can't have a completely precise
> GC as long as it has unions and can pass managed memory to C code.

We can change the way unions are layed out. The compiler can mark GC 
memory passed to a C function as non-movable, or passing GC memory to a 
C function can be made illegal if the GC is enabled.