gcc 3.3 garbage collector defaults

[Matt Austern]

On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 02:03 PM, Neil Booth wrote:

> Zack Weinberg wrote:-
>
>>> Why aren't the defaults sane???
>>
>> I imagine they were sane for when they were introduced, and have never
>> been reexamined since?
>
> Let's not get carried away, though, and compare post-GC-fudge
> performance to pre-GC-fudge performance and claim we're doing better.

That's an important point.  Do we believe that this regression is 
because
the gc defaults have changed?  (Not a rhetorical question: I haven't 
seen
evidence one way or the other.)  If yes, then this is a fix.  If not, 
then it's a
useful change but there's still a regression that we need to identify.

			--Matt