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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Garbage Collection in Ada
Date: 1996/10/20
Message-ID: <dewar.845840964@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 190864842
references: <01bbb910$f1e73f60$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se>
 <dewar.845732059@merv> <199610191920401982154@dialup119-3-12.swipnet.se>
 <dewar.845809398@merv> <DzL7LK.34y@world.std.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iRobert Duff

"There are some counter-examples.  Hans Boehm pointed out one case in
this thread -- a GC that conservatively scans the stack (or the top-most
stack frame) for each thread/task, which is an integral part of the
compiler system.  This is done for efficiency and/or for ease of
implementation -- given the fact that it is very difficult to do garbage
collection if you have lots of tasks that can be interrupted between any
two instructions.  If the GC can happen at any time, the GC doesn't know
much about the consistency of things on the stack.  Or in registers."


A counter example to my claim that CGC is not embedded in standardly
used compilers or operating systems requires you to cite a particular
system or compiler that is commercially available, not to theorize about
what might be done!