Workaround for typeid access violation

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 21:35:34 UTC, Etienne wrote:

>> I am no compiler/runtime guru, but it sounds like if it were 
>> possible to make this a swappable option for D this might be 
>> very important.  Is this true, and how much work is involved 
>> in making this industrial strength?
>
> To me this is 100 times more stable simply because destructors 
> can no longer be called from any thread. I'm also going to keep 
> this implementation for its guarantee that destructors will be 
> called. The absence of locking and stop the world makes it a 
> very high performance GC.
>
> Of course, the tradeoff is the absence of support in moving 
> objects between threads. That's really an insignificant 
> limitation compared to the above points. I don't expect it to 
> be merged simply because nobody is familiar enough with this 
> type of GC to have a say, except for what a GC shouldn't 
> guarantee in general. And I'm really tired of people telling me 
> what I can't or shouldn't do, when I'm brainstorming on this 
> forum.

Do you have any links to reading material on this type of GC?

I appreciate that it may in the general case be more stable, but 
in the particular implementation usually there is some distance 
to go from something good enough for personal use to something 
that others can depend on without having to understand the nitty 
gritty of the implementation.  So that is what I was asking...