This is the mail archive of the
guile@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: OK, what about some resolution (Re: GUILE's GC - why we struggling to solve already solved problems?)
Clark McGrew <mcgrew@ale.physics.sunysb.edu> writes:
> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Livshin <mlivshin@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
> Michael> * current Guile GC sucks.
>
> Really? That's news to me.
OK, so much for using relative terms and not saying that I do.
> The current evidence is that GGC is 50% faster than BGC. Obviously
> BGC can be tuned and made more precise, it will always need to scan
> more than GGC.
my hunch is that, properly integrated, BGC will be faster then the
current GC, due to various algorithmic reasons (lazy sweep,
"generational" collection, explicit markstack, ...).
> I guess it's worth pointing out that BGC uses a VM barrier to
> implement generational GC. VM barriers were considered for
> Generational GC in guile and discarded because they were far too
> inefficient.
they are better than nothing. but yes, I *believe* that SW write
barrier would be even better. apparently, BGC has some hooks to
implement that -- the adventurous people who want to try integrating
BGC with Guile should look into it.
--
programmer, n:
A red eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate
monsters.