Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4

[Michael S. Zick <mszick at goquest dot com>]

On Thursday 30 January 2003 03:29 pm, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Michael S.Zick wrote:
> > > where the real problems lie), the new GC default is going to reduce or
> > > eliminate the impact of that improvement, an impact that would have
> > > been noticeable had the GC defaults not been changed, and the
> > > improvement is less likely to happen.
> >
> > So, lets make part of the testing protocal: "disable GC"
>
> What can be disabled easily is collecting and reclaiming GC memory.  What
> can _not_ be done easily is to go back to a memory management like in
> 2.95.x or earlier.  But that would be needed to really calculate the cost
> of GC, because collecting is only a part of the overhead.  
>
Understood.
I wasn't clear what part of the statement my suggestion applied too.

The statement was that improvements in parts of the compiler
other than GC could (would) be hidden in the "noise" of changing
GC defaults.

I was suggesting that the "other parts" be compared by tests
run such that "GC noise" is worked around.
I seem to recall mention on this list of an option that can be passed
specifying, in effect: GC=never.

That is what I was suggesting - not a way to cost or measure
GC - a way to cost or measure everything else.

Mike