On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 05:29:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 05:16:26 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
How difficult would it be to add a, selectable, low-latency GC to dlang?

Is it closer to "we cant get there from here" or "no big deal if you already have the low-latency GC in hand"?

I've heard Walter mention performance issues (write barriers IIRC). I'm also interested in the GC-flavor performance trade offs but here I'm just asking about feasibility.

The only reasonable option for D is single threaded GC or ARC.

OK. Some rationale? Do you, for example, believe that no-probable-dlanger could benefit from a low-latency GC? That it is too hard to implement? That the language is somehow incompatible? That ...

  • low-latency GC Bruce Carneal via Digitalmars-d-learn
    • Re: low-latency GC Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-learn
      • Re: low-latency GC Bruce Carneal via Digitalmars-d-learn
        • Re: low-latency ... Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-learn
          • Re: low-late... Bruce Carneal via Digitalmars-d-learn
            • Re: low... Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Bruce Carneal via Digitalmars-d-learn
                • ... Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-learn
                • ... Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-learn
                • ... Bruce Carneal via Digitalmars-d-learn
                • ... Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-learn
                • ... IGotD- via Digitalmars-d-learn
                • ... Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-learn

Reply via email to