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 concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D25ABC69 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:23:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8IDNS5B003888 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:23:30 +0200 Received: from rosella (ppp14-47.lns2.syd7.internode.on.net [59.167.14.47]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k8IDNJfe070985; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:53:20 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from skaller@users.sourceforge.net) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: The Future Possibility of Concurrent Garbage Collection? From: skaller To: Stefan Monnier Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: References: <891bd3390609150729k27b7acf8rc9b12f1e08eae93@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:23:19 +1000 Message-Id: <1158585799.15083.45.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 450E9DD0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; sourceforge:01 garbage:01 caml-list:01 concurrent:03 concurrent:03 cases:08 john:08 felix:09 felix:09 possibility:10 explain:11 end:11 successor:13 price:84 use:16 > The main cost of a concurrent GC is that the application code has to be > changed to cooperate with the GC. So if you want to be able to use the same > application code for both the concurrent and the non-concurrent GC, you end > up paying the price of concurrent GC in both cases :-( Can you explain this in more detail? -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net