Re: Static Garbage Collection

"Armel" <>
Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:57:17 +0200

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: Static Garbage Collection (Matthias-Christian Ott) (2009-05-26)
Re: Static Garbage Collection (Vincent Belliard) (2009-05-26)
Re: Static Garbage Collection (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2009-05-29)
Re: Static Garbage Collection (Armel) (2009-05-29)
Re: Static Garbage Collection (Marco van de Voort) (2009-05-30)
Re: Static Garbage Collection (Vincent Belliard) (2009-05-31)
Re: Static Garbage Collection (Armel) (2009-06-01)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Armel" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:57:17 +0200
Organization: les newsgroups par Orange
References: 09-05-120 09-05-130 09-05-135 09-06-001
Keywords: GC
Posted-Date: 02 Jun 2009 13:25:43 EDT

> The use of qualified references avoid a lot of job even if it cost a
> little bit more in data (because you must count references separately).
> When an object has at least one reference from a local or global
> variable, in no way it can be destroyed. In that case, when you release
> one reference on the object you don't have extra job to do.

I personnally use the user/maintainance (==qualified) reference
counting principle in all my projects: this is indeed a really
efficient way to handle objects life cycle when the relation between
objects can be foreseen. the thesis referred "Concurrent Cycle
Collection in Reference Counted Systems", June 2001, from David
F. Bacon and V.T. Rajan is simply "another way": sometime you cannot
predict how users will build graphs of those smart pointers, and
having this strategy in those cases can be interesting (in addition to
the faster/more efficient "qualified" references).


Post a followup to this message

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