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,aa2e415128e40fff
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Question about garbage collection
Date: 1998/04/24
Message-ID: <dewar.893429476@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 347322424
References: <6hf8jj$p9a$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <ErqJro.9BI@world.std.com>
 <dewar.893163406@merv> <6hiv42$spu$1@news1.ucsd.edu>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 893429767 12277 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Billy said

<<Shouldn't be used.  Unless, of course, one is comparing reference counting
to GC...  :-)  Even in a conservative GC, garbage will always _eventually_
be collected, and is never lost.  In reference counting garbage can be
lost.
>>

Obviously we are not agreeing on terminology here. I am using 
conservative GC to refer to the technique where you hold on to something
if there is anything that *looks like* a retaining address in some other
live block. Obviously with this definition you can hold on to arbitrary
amounts of garbage for arbtrarily long.