On Jun 20, 2017, at 1:19 AM, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Cem Karan <cfkar...@gmail.com> writes: >> Can you give examples of how it's not reliable? > > Basically there's a chance of it leaking memory by mistaking a data word > for a pointer. This is unlikely to happen by accident and usually > inconsequential if it does happen, but maybe there could be malicious > data that makes it happen Got it, thank you. My processes will run for 1-2 weeks at a time, so I can handle minor memory leaks over that time without too much trouble. > Also, it's a non-compacting gc that has to touch all the garbage as it > sweeps, not a reliability issue per se, but not great for performance > especially in large, long-running systems. I'm not too sure how much of performance impact that will have. My code generates a very large number of tiny, short-lived objects at a fairly high rate of speed throughout its lifetime. At least in the last iteration of the code, garbage collection consumed less than 1% of the total runtime. Maybe this is something that needs to be done and profiled to see how well it works? > It's brilliant though. It's one of those things that seemingly can't > possibly work, but it turns out to be quite effective. Agreed! I **still** can't figure out how they managed to do it, it really does look like it shouldn't work at all! Thanks, Cem Karan -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
