[dmd-internals] Giving better static data limits to the GC

[Steve Schveighoffer]

>From what I understand, that was what the original precise scanning patch did.  
Since the tables are static, having the compiler do it is a better idea.

But I think the "large footprint" might be somewhat of a strawman.  Yes, it will 
increase space, but I don't think it will be that much.  Consider that the 
precise scanning bits are static, and will be stored statically.  Have we run 
any tests to see how much space it actually adds?

-Steve



----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com>
> To: Discuss the internals of DMD <dmd-internals at puremagic.com>
> Sent: Mon, August 23, 2010 6:51:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmd-internals] Giving better static data limits to the GC
> 
> I see, thanks. Could that or at least the bulk of it be done through a 
> reflection mechanism? That would have the compiler generate a modicum of 
> info, leaving the library to generate the costly  tables.
> 
> Andrei
> 
> On 08/22/2010 11:11 PM, Walter Bright  wrote:
> > Having a precise collector requires the compiler to emit the  tables for it.
> >
> > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> I'm  thinking - it's been the hallmark of druntime (vs. Phobos1) for
> >> the  longest time that it has a configurable GC. How about this - let's
> >>  make the precise GC a custom collector. This would allow us to (a)
> >>  compare the existing GC with the proposed GC and (b) tune druntime's
> >>  details with a real-world alternate GC.
> >>
> >> Is that all  possible?
> >>
> >> Andrei
> >>
> >  _______________________________________________
> > dmd-internals mailing  list
> > dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals s mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>