From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3B2BBAF for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:25:01 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,279,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="31680504" Received: from macabane.inria.fr ([128.93.8.160]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 Aug 2009 12:25:01 +0200 Cc: OCaml List Message-Id: <021D8B63-6323-49FA-A04F-A3796296BF9E@inria.fr> From: Damien Doligez To: Christophe Raffalli In-Reply-To: <4A942774.8000208@univ-savoie.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Physical counterpart to Pervasives.compare? Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:25:01 +0200 References: <20090824100004.6DBBDBBAF@yquem.inria.fr> <67BF878D-BA80-4CE8-87BA-760AE8082517@cea.fr> <4A942774.8000208@univ-savoie.fr> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 pervasives:01 christophe:01 raffalli:01 compaction:01 2009:98 doligez:01 doligez:01 incremental:01 wrote:01 heap:01 heap:01 caml-list:01 minor:01 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