On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 06:52:41 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 05:41:05 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
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 ...
The GC needs to scan all the affected call stacks before it can
do incremental collection. Multi threaded GC is generally not
compatible with low level programming.
GCs scan memory, sure. Lots of variations. Not germane. Not a
rationale.
D is employed at multiple "levels". Whatever level you call it,
Go and modern JVMs employ low latency GCs in multi-threaded
environments. Some people would like to use D at that "level".
My question remains: how difficult would it be to bring such
technology to D as a GC option? Is it precluded somehow by the
language? Is it doable but quite a lot of effort because ...?
Is it no big deal once you have the GC itself because you only
need xyz hooks? Is it ...?
Also, I think Walter may have been concerned about read barrier
overhead but, again, I'm looking for feasibility information.
What would it take to get something that we could compare?
