On 2020/02/03 18:27:27, dak wrote: > On 2020/02/03 18:13:00, hahnjo wrote: > > On 2020/02/03 18:01:09, dak wrote: > > > Stupid question: unique_ptr has the purpose of deallocating memory when the > > last > > > reference is gone. But we have an entire Scheme allocation system exactly > for > > > that purpose for which we are already paying the price in overhead. Any > > chance > > > this can be usefully tracked in the SCM scheme of things? > > > > Why would we want to use GC more than needed? Any marking algorithm will > always > > be slower than a local variable going out of scope. > > unique_ptr has bookkeeping overhead. The marking algorithm runs anyway and has > no memory overhead. I have not looked at the actual patch yet, but unique_ptr > really is doing pretty much the same job as SCM except that it acts with no > delay, so if it is important that the destructors are called right away when the > last reference is gone, SCM will not do the job.
Sorry, I confused this with shared_ptr. unique_ptr just has compilation overhead, no runtime or memory overhead. Nothing to be seen here, I withdraw my objection. This is definitely not something where SCM would solve the same task. https://codereview.appspot.com/573500043/
