compile time garbage collection

[weaselcat via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 3 May 2015 at 08:02:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 May 2015 at 04:46:52 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> i don't thing that such pass in general worth the efforts. D 
>> programmers
>> tend to use structures for local and short-lived objects. if i 
>> did `new`,
>> chances are that i really want it on heap, and it will not be 
>> optimisable
>
> This is where one have to decide whether to make a low/system 
> level language with programmer control or a high level language 
> with compiler control.  If you have GC by default, then it 
> makes a lot of sense to not even have a stack conceptually and 
> do explicit allocations and stack allocation as an optimization.
>
> But yeah, a system level language should allow threads to be 
> terminated which would prevent destructors from being called, 
> and since GC call destructors on another thread it will change 
> program behaviour to turn GC allocations into stack allocations 
> in general...
>

there's no guarantee GC allocated memory will _ever_ have their 
destructor ran, it's part of the spec.

>The garbage collector is not guaranteed to run the destructor 
>for all unreferenced objects.