Re: Garbage Collection

David.Chase@Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:42:09 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[16 earlier articles]
Re: Garbage collection nick.roberts@acm.org (Nick Roberts) (2004-09-03)
Re: Garbage collection sk@bez.spamu.z.pl (Sebastian) (2004-09-07)
Re: Garbage collection usenet@leapheap.co.uk (2004-09-13)
Re: Garbage Collection eifrig@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (1992-08-09)
Re: Garbage Collection boehm@parc.xerox.com (1992-08-11)
Re: Garbage Collection eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu (1992-08-12)
Re: Garbage Collection David.Chase@Eng.Sun.COM (1992-08-13)
Re: Garbage Collection boehm@parc.xerox.com (1992-08-14)
Garbage collection Olin.Shivers@cs.cmu.edu (1992-11-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: David.Chase@Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Organization: Compilers Central
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:42:09 GMT
Keywords: storage, GC
References: 92-08-056 92-08-045

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that you're
> using the stack and the registers as roots of garbage collection. ...
> If we decide, in an attempt to be _really_conservative_,
> to assume everything is a pointer, then we pay a double penalty: since
> we're wasting time moving junk around, garbage collection takes longer,
> and since we're not reclaiming storage that is actually free, we collect
> more often.


> It seems clear that this naive approach won't be satisfactory, so
> what can we do?


I'd suggest reading "Garbage Collection in an Uncooperative
Environment" by Boehm and Weiser in _Software Practice and Experience_,
September 1988.


Their naive and clearly unsatisfactory approach works quite well, in
practice.


David Chase
Sun
--

Post a followup to this message

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