This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: [boehms-gc] Performance results

From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <laurynas dot biveinis at gmail dot com>
To: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:07:17 +0300
Subject: Re: [boehms-gc] Performance results
References: <d1e3ff2b0607240145h1558bc59h61a6250150b14fd7@mail.gmail.com> <44C603D2.7060800@dberlin.org>

2006/7/25, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>:

There probably are.
But at some point, if you are tuning boehm's to this point, what is the
advantage of it over just writing your own collector like ggc-page? :)


Indeed. That's why I always welcome opinions, should I continue with
Boehm's or stop already :)

I mean, you might as well drive boehm's marking using the exact marking
process (IE replacing the ggc_mark calls with GC_mark_*, instead of it's
conservative one, you'd probably get better performance since it
wouldn't be guessing :)


Now that's a better idea than treat atomic data structures
specifically. I will see what can I do here.

Thanks,

--
Laurynas

References:
- [boehms-gc] Performance results
  - From: Laurynas Biveinis
- Re: [boehms-gc] Performance results
  - From: Daniel Berlin

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