From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3498dd887729ed19 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: lars.farm@ite.mh.se (Lars Farm) Subject: Re: Garbage Collection in Ada Date: 1996/10/17 Message-ID: <19961017091558202103@dialup110-2-16.swipnet.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 190482291 references: <01bbb910$f1e73f60$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se> <199610132138291604607@dialup101-6-14.swipnet.se> <19961014115513529729@dialup105-2-16.swipnet.se> <199610162305033003135@dialup100-4-3.swipnet.se> organization: pv nntp-posting-user: s-49817 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > No, you are confused, if a language expects GC, and if a proper GC is > incorporated, there is no respect in which the presence of GC inhibits > optimizations. Where did you get this idea? >From you, about compiler optimization vs collectors. Since virtual origin is new to me may well be confused. You said (about C++, conservative GC and virtual origin): > Such optimization is definitely OK, the fact that incorrect programs, > such as any conservative collector, can detect that the optimization > is in place is irrelevant, and it is not just that "some may say this", > it is absolutely clear. -- Lars Farm, lars.farm@ite.mh.se