Re: Stack based-Register Based

henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
25 Feb 2001 23:31:07 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[9 earlier articles]
Re: Stack based-Register Based Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (2001-02-04)
Re: Stack based-Register Based anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2001-02-04)
Re: Stack based-Register Based anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2001-02-04)
Re: Stack based-Register Based joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-02-15)
Re: Stack based-Register Based joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-02-25)
Re: Stack based-Register Based joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-02-25)
Re: Stack based-Register Based henry@spsystems.net (2001-02-25)
Re: Stack based-Register Based ndalton@ics.uci.edu (Niall Dalton) (2001-03-01)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 25 Feb 2001 23:31:07 -0500
Organization: SP Systems, Toronto, Canada
References: 01-01-124 01-02-010 01-02-033 01-02-142
Keywords: GC, architecture
Posted-Date: 25 Feb 2001 23:31:07 EST

Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@gmx.de> wrote:
>Reference counting (RC) vs. mark-and-sweep garbage collection (MAS)...
>5. Amortized time overhead
>RC must update reference counts whenever a pointer is changed. This
>means an overhead of two memory writes per pointer memory write!


In principle, a clever compiler can optimize out many of those updates,
since they are often transient -- counters go up and down while a data
structure is being rearranged, but the final counts end up the same.
--
When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net
can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.