Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
That's certainly possible, maybe even interesting, but I'm not going
to try this :) Circular references could be handled by fallbacking to
mark-and-sweep time from time.
Or by just being careful. Even type correct full garbage collection does
not guarantee freedom from
2006/7/25, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
A theoritical alternative might be to use a precise copying collector
like Qish. http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/qishintro.html In
practice, this would be impractical (even if the GTY marker could
help) because it requires changing a lot of c
GCC is just too huge to try and implement reference counting
just to see what it would do, right? All managed structures would have
to include a base class with the count in it and all new references would
have to be through a macro...
That's certainly possible, maybe even interesting, but I'm
> 2006/7/24, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > No, GC is just not running as you have too much memory to cause it to
> > run with --disable-checking :).
>
> Oh! Now my performance results have totally different interpretation
> under Linux...
> Laurynas
There is a way to tweek this
Le Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:30:04PM -0500, David Nicol écrivait/wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Laurynas Biveinis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[How is it that setting pointers] to NULL can
> >actually increase peak GC memory usage?
>
> I'll guess that during collection phases, the list of
> collectible st
On 7/24/06, Laurynas Biveinis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[How is it that setting pointers] to NULL can
actually increase peak GC memory usage?
I'll guess that during collection phases, the list of
collectible structures becomes longer.
GCC is just too huge to try and implement reference count
2006/7/25, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There probably are.
But at some point, if you are tuning boehm's to this point, what is the
advantage of it over just writing your own collector like ggc-page? :)
Indeed. That's why I always welcome opinions, should I continue with
Boehm's or stop
>
> 6) Are there any data objects in GCC, that the only pointers pointing
> to them point to their interiors and not the beginning? If I could
> disable Boehm's interior pointer support, that should boost
> performance in all respects.
There probably are.
But at some point, if you are tuning boeh
2006/7/24, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
No, GC is just not running as you have too much memory to cause it to
run with --disable-checking :).
Oh! Now my performance results have totally different interpretation
under Linux...
--
Laurynas
On Jul 24, 2006, at 4:22 AM, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
So does that mean that there is no way to get GGC debug output with
--disable-checking? Is there any very cheap --enable-checking option
that would be give that or am I better off to hack GCC to do it with
--disable-checking?
No, GC is ju
> 4) I have configured Linux compilers with "--disable-checking". I was
> quite surprised to see that GGC times have disappeared from the "-Q
> -ftime-report -fmem-report" output. Is this expected by design
> behaviour? What minimum configure options will cause GGC time to
> reappear?
Yes that is
On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:45 AM, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
4) I have configured Linux compilers with "--disable-checking". I was
quite surprised to see that GGC times have disappeared from the "-Q
-ftime-report -fmem-report" output. Is this expected by design
behaviour? What minimum configure option
Hi,
(This email is quite long; if you are not interested in performance
data, scroll down for my questions that you might be able to answer)
Below are some performance results with --with-gc=boehm. This
collector since the last posted results at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00729.html, h
13 matches
Mail list logo
