Re: [Caml-list] Physical counterpart to Pervasives.compare?

[Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@inria.fr>]

On 2009-08-25, at 20:03, Christophe Raffalli wrote:

> [...] and the minor heap is at
> a higher adress than the major heap,

That would be very hard to guarantee, given the current OS
trend toward address randomization.


> How much slower is the compacting major GC comparer
> to the standard one ?


First you do the GC, then you compact, so it's pure overhead
but that's not the problem.  The problem is that compaction
is not incremental.

-- Damien