This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Faster compilation speed [zone allocation]

>>>>> Lynn Winebarger writes:

Lynn> GCC's GC promotion of poor locality of reference is not proof that
Lynn> reference counting is the only way to improve that locality of reference.
Lynn> It doesn't matter what allocation/reclamation scheme you switch to, if it's
Lynn> not used in a way consistent with the cases it optimizes for, it's going to
Lynn> stink.  There's just as much reason to believe there's a generational GC
Lynn> that will do what you need as to believe reference counting will be some
Lynn> kind of magic bullet (without the brittleness).
	Let me correct my sloppy wording.  What I meant by "it's a
requirement for the underlying improvement" is that it is a dependency for
that particular proposal -- RC is a means to an end, not an end unto
itself.  There are many ways to address the locality problem.

	I am trying to encourage people participating in this discussion
to stop fixating on the garbage collector itself.  Somehow when GC is
mentioned, people obsess on the garbage collection process without reading
the entire discussion.  If there is interest in discussing garbage
collectors, there are other mailinglists on that specific topic where the
pros and cons of various styles with and without hardware assistance are


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]