More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Wyatt via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 06:06:40 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
>
> This comes up from time to time, but to me it is very blurry 
> how this can work in reality.
>
The paper I linked on Friday [0] presents a collector like this.  
Are there concerns I've missed that make that not applicable?

> Considering how "shared" is supposed to be used to be useful 
> (do some locking, then cast away "shared") there is no 
> guarantee by the language that any object is actually thread 
> local (no references from other threads). Working with 
> immutable (e.g. strings) is shared by design.

I'm not seeing much in the documentation, but from what I can 
tell (per the FAQ), shared in D just guarantees it's on the 
global heap?

-Wyatt

[0] 
https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/parallel/local-gc.pdf