|[21 earlier articles]|
|Re: Ada GC email@example.com (1996-02-13)|
|Re: Ada GC firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-02-13)|
|Re: Ada GC email@example.com (1996-02-13)|
|Re: Ada GC firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-02-13)|
|Re: Ada GC email@example.com (1996-02-13)|
|Re: Ada GC firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-02-14)|
|Re: Ada GC email@example.com (1996-02-14)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Jon S Anthony)|
|Date:||14 Feb 1996 21:32:38 -0500|
|Organization:||Organon Motives, Inc.|
|References:||<email@example.com 96-02-091 96-02-136|
Henry Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>It's no harder to formally specify what it means to 'have GC' than it
>is to specify what it means to be 'real-time'. ...
Kevin Weise <email@example.com> wrote:
>I admit I haven't read the specifications and definitions of all new
>languages for the past twenty years. But I have *never* seen a language
>specification that did this, except for certain assemblers that told you
>how many machine cycles each instruction required to execute...
firstname.lastname@example.org (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
> Check the C++ language standard... library section.
> (Certainly of the STL library operations have time complexity requirements
> in the draft standard.)
They are not talking about general time complexity stuff (big-O,
little-o, Theta, etc.) They are talking about actual maximal time
constraints as in something like, "...this operation has time bounds
such that under circumstance ..., it will not exceed 100micro seconds,
under ...." Of course this is related to time complexity, but is not
the same thing.
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.