Re: Comparing Guile's GC with BDW-GC

Hi Neil, "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 05/11/2008, Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I finally [0] conducted experiments to compare Guile's GC with my port >> of Guile to the Boehm-Demers-Weiser GC (BDW-GC). The code for that port >> is not currently available on

Why bother porting Guile to BDW-GC?

Hello Guilers! Below are some of the points (in no particular order) that IMO can make it worthwhile to use the Boehm-Demers-Weiser GC [0] in Guile instead of Guile's historical GC, from an engineering viewpoint. 1. Less code to maintain, in particular less complex and non-portable code.

Re: Why bother porting Guile to BDW-GC?

Han-Wen Nienhuys escreveu: > Ludovic Courtès escreveu: >> Hello Guilers! >> >> Below are some of the points (in no particular order) that IMO can make >> it worthwhile to use the Boehm-Demers-Weiser GC [0] in Guile instead of >> Guile's historical GC, from an engineering viewpoint. >> > > I'm all

Re: Comparing Guile's GC with BDW-GC

Ludovic Courtès escreveu: > Hello! >heap size (MiB) execution time (s.) > Guile1.54 (1.00x) 6.316 (1.00x) > BDW-GC, FSD=32.41 (1.57x) 4.943 (0.78x) I wonder whether this is a useful benchmark. 1.54 mb is small compared to the 2mb L2 ca

Re: Comparing Guile's GC with BDW-GC

Ludovic Courtès escreveu: > Hello! > > I finally [0] conducted experiments to compare Guile's GC with my port > of Guile to the Boehm-Demers-Weiser GC (BDW-GC). The code for that port > is not currently available on-line but I'd be happy to push it somewhere > (would Guile's repo at Savannah be a

Re: Why bother porting Guile to BDW-GC?

Ludovic Courtès escreveu: > Hello Guilers! > > Below are some of the points (in no particular order) that IMO can make > it worthwhile to use the Boehm-Demers-Weiser GC [0] in Guile instead of > Guile's historical GC, from an engineering viewpoint. > I'm all for scrapping code; here are my conce