Article View: comp.sw.components
Article #131Re: Real-time Garbage Collection
From: William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1989 00:36
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1989 00:36
23 lines
1643 bytes
1643 bytes
From ds@hollin.prime.com:
> Sometimes, [...] dynamic reclamation (garbage collection) is
> truly necessary (to avoid unnaturalness or inefficiency). A
> useful parallel is the need for both stack and heap data storage in
> general-purpose programming languages.
I think we've established that managed and unmanaged storage
paradigms can coexist, and that components which manage their
own storage can avoid the inefficiencies of garbage collection.
We also know that the user MUST be involved in storage management,
if for no other reason than to decide which data structures to
throw away in the event of a storage crisis.
What I'd like to know is: Is there a hard counterexample which
will demonstrate that situations exist in which the inefficiencies
of garbage collection cannot be avoided? Someone has already outlined
the properties that such a counterexample should have, and mentioned
a "gut feeling" that such a counterexample exists. Unfortunately,
I have a similar "gut feeling" that GC is never worth the cost.
Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<6559@hubcap.clemson.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.eduReferences:
<194000001@hollin>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) Newsgroups: comp.sw.components Subject: Re: Real-time Garbage Collection Message-ID: <6559@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 24 Sep 89 00:36:03 GMT References: <194000001@hollin> Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu Lines: 23