Message-ID: <3914F929.A9577BB8@softhome.net>
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 08:03:37 +0300
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Perfomance of gc-simple
References: <3913E7CE DOT 14467 DOT E8926 AT localhost> <200005062131 DOT RAA07152 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Another approach would be to profile the slow GC and see what takes
> time there.  It's possible that nobody worked on it seriously enough
> because everybody uses the other techniques.

That's very likely.

> > so C++ and the other languages
> > that are being converted to use GC can work in an acceptable amount of time.
> 
> Isn't the C compiler affected by this as well?

Of course - I used C compiler in my example. But for C++, things would be
much worse. In my example GC was run only once to reduce memory usage from
5 to 1 MB. In C++ it would be run many times to reduce mem usage from 50 or 100MB
to 10 MB...

> However, if alignment is the only difference between `valloc' and
> `malloc', I don't quite see what's the big difference between them
> that would explain such a huge run-time penalty.  Can someone explain?

Because they're used in two different GC implementations: gc-simple uses
malloc and gc-page uses mmap or valloc.

Laurynas Biveinis