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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,29850945228df59 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-17 06:38:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!louie!tlk!not-for-mail Sender: lbrenta@lbrenta.corp.emc.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Boehm-Demers-Weiser conservative garbage collector and GNAT References: <1316747.mXveBPtf0Z@linux1.krischik.com> From: Ludovic Brenta Date: 17 Jun 2003 15:40:07 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.190.149.159 X-Trace: 1055857130 reader1.news.skynet.be 1051 fa058819/213.190.149.159:19533 X-Complaints-To: abuse@skynet.be Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39332 Date: 2003-06-17T15:40:07+02:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > It would be a way to spend overhead to make up for a lack of cleanup > > in the programming. > > Exactly. So one would need to have GC in all implementations in order to > have any real use for it IMHO. As one then can start with more sloppy > coding [*]. > > [*] In the sense that you don't worry abut what happens to your > allocations. Yes. I've never really liked GC myself, but the paper that Martin mentions says that programmers spend up to 30% of their time doing (and debugging) memory management, and that perhaps this 30% could be better spent elsewhere. This at the expense of some performance [1] and portability. It's a trade-off that many people may find appealing, so, I can see a point of providing it for those who want it. Of course, I suppose using the GC would be optional, even if GCC or GNAT did provide it. I tend to think that choice is almost always a good thing. [1] According to the paper, Boehm's GC has pretty good performance, but GCC's compilation speed has suffered from its introduction. Also, in most Java virtual machines, the GC is a well-known source of unpredictability in the performance of applications. (the original paper also says the GC is a good debugging tool that aids in finding memory leaks; but, of course, GNAT already has a debug storage pool, so I don't think this is the reason Martin wants to provide GC). -- Ludovic Brenta.