Re: Garbage collection

"Nick Roberts" <>
9 Aug 2004 00:22:20 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
garbage collection (Lex Spoon) (2003-07-13)
Garbage collection (2004-07-28)
Re: Garbage collection (2004-08-04)
Re: Garbage collection (Sebastian) (2004-08-04)
Re: Garbage collection (2004-08-05)
Re: Garbage collection (Basile Starynkevitch \[news\]) (2004-08-05)
Re: Garbage collection (Nick Roberts) (2004-08-09)
Re: Garbage collection (2004-08-10)
Re: Garbage collection (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-08-11)
Re: Garbage collection (Nick Roberts) (2004-08-13)
Re: Garbage collection (Tomasz Zielonka) (2004-08-13)
Re: Garbage collection (Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho) (2004-08-15)
Re: Garbage collection (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-08-15)
[12 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Nick Roberts" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 9 Aug 2004 00:22:20 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 04-07-085 04-08-011
Keywords: GC, storage
Posted-Date: 09 Aug 2004 00:22:20 EDT

On 4 Aug 2004 02:45:19 -0400, Sebastian <> wrote:

> [Microsoft garbage collector]
> *) it's copying GC for not too large objects (AFAIR less than 16KB),
> larger objects are allocated from yet another heap and are unmoveable
> (as moving large obiects to compact memory is too slow)

Sadly, I feel the need to add a caveat to this (helpfully meant)
advice, that, whilst it is indeed likely to be enlightening to read
articles published by Microsoft, it is also necessary to bear in mind
that past evidence suggests Microsoft is not exactly the fount of all
computing wisdom. I'm afraid I often find that their documentation is
enlightening in suggesting to me precisely how /not/ to do it.

I may add that I am not a knee-jerk Microsoft knocker. I feel there is
genuine evidence of their widespread technical inexpertise.

The above technique (taken on its own, as I am not myself familiar
with Microsoft technologies) seems to be evidence in my case. I find
it hard to believe that the designers just gave up on moving large
blocks! I wonder if actually the idea is to allocate blocks greater
than a certain size page-aligned (in a different heap), so that they
can be moved by page table manipulation?

Anyway, my advice is simply to be cautious about Microsoft's
technology documents, and I suppose the same advice applies to other
Nick Roberts

Post a followup to this message

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