Re: Static Garbage Collection

Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
Sat, 30 May 2009 09:41:59 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: Static Garbage Collection mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2009-05-26)
Re: Static Garbage Collection stock@esa.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de (Florian Stock) (2009-05-26)
Re: Static Garbage Collection ott@mirix.org (Matthias-Christian Ott) (2009-05-26)
Re: Static Garbage Collection vincent@famillebelliard.fr (Vincent Belliard) (2009-05-26)
Re: Static Garbage Collection DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2009-05-29)
Re: Static Garbage Collection armelasselin@hotmail.com (Armel) (2009-05-29)
Re: Static Garbage Collection marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2009-05-30)
Re: Static Garbage Collection vincent@famillebelliard.fr (Vincent Belliard) (2009-05-31)
Re: Static Garbage Collection armelasselin@hotmail.com (Armel) (2009-06-01)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 09:41:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
References: 09-05-120
Keywords: storage, GC
Posted-Date: 31 May 2009 11:44:15 EDT

On 2009-05-25, Matthias-Christian Ott <ott@mirix.org> wrote:
> The result would be same as if you manually managed you memory, so you
> would have no runtime overhead garbage collection, just for the tests of
> the user input, because we can predict everything that does not depend
> on user input at compile time.


Any external input. So also every OS call (since it usually can fail leading
to an alternate codepath) and of course RAND()


Note that if such calls are wrapped in your runtime, and are "under the
hood" it still applies, unless the compiler has very inimate knowledge about
the runtime.


Post a followup to this message

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