Some high water mark on the stack might be another improvement - it
would only need to scan above it for changes - but on a second thought:
that wouldn't work or "change" wouldn't mean anything anymore because of
the Lazy Sweep.
Have you ever seen such a thing segfault after exactly 9000 cells and
exactly 16 vectors. That was way too much C code fore me today ...
Usually you don't say they "leak" - they "conserve". Sounds much better,
right? It's just the same.
On 05/07/2015 20:36, Yuhao Dong wrote:
One thing to note, though, is that collectors like Boehm do support
marking regions of memory as not containing pointers. IIRC, Boehm is
actually quite performant, ignoring the fact that it might leak (and
usually leaks for functional languages) - it's generational and
incremental. The Unity game engine actually uses it (it uses an old
version of Mono, which can only use Boehm)
> Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 07:38:48 +0200
> From: michael.tied...@o2online.de
> To: racket-users@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [racket-users] garbage collection
> It's better to think about the malloc/gc duo as a memory manager. Some
> traditional approaches just seem awfully dumb and wrong like
> conservative mark&sweep. Treating every byte word on each and every
call
> stack (every thread has one) as a valid reference to a Scheme object
> just doesn't scale well.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
