From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rich@annexia.org>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CFA37EE99
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 11:41:49 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rich@annexia.org) identity=pra; client-ip=80.68.91.176;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rich@annexia.org";
  x-sender="rich@annexia.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  rich@annexia.org designates 80.68.91.176 as permitted sender)
  identity=mailfrom; client-ip=80.68.91.176;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rich@annexia.org";
  x-sender="rich@annexia.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible;
  x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@furbychan.cocan.org) identity=helo;
  client-ip=80.68.91.176;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rich@annexia.org";
  x-sender="postmaster@furbychan.cocan.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjgFAKLBtlJQRFuw/2dsb2JhbABYgwuDOhO2f4ERFnSCJQEBAQQ6PxALGAkTEg8FKCGIGwHKeheGJ4h+B4Q2BJgWkhWDLTw
X-IPAS-Result: AjgFAKLBtlJQRFuw/2dsb2JhbABYgwuDOhO2f4ERFnSCJQEBAQQ6PxALGAkTEg8FKCGIGwHKeheGJ4h+B4Q2BJgWkhWDLTw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,530,1384297200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="50065697"
Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 22 Dec 2013 11:41:48 +0100
Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <rich@annexia.org>)
	id 1VugTf-00026D-V7; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:41:43 +0000
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:41:43 +0000
From: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rich@annexia.org>
To: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Cc: 'Gabriel Scherer' <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>,
	'Tom Ridge' <tom.j.ridge+list@googlemail.com>,
	'caml-list' <caml-list@inria.fr>
Message-ID: <20131222104143.GG3162@annexia.org>
References: <CABooLwP7eSJ5Zc=3uSwCqU4a8Yy6a8bSm_74fQEhN=ceEzpdVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPFanBHmVQdWC68H5o43gxwkAYrf6LwTPB+ddG=sj=ojKMh9Gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131219224727.GA14006@annexia.org>
 <089e01cefebd$0e12f300$2a38d900$@ffconsultancy.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <089e01cefebd$0e12f300$2a38d900$@ffconsultancy.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Question about garbage collection and impact on
 performance

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 02:25:16AM -0000, Jon Harrop wrote:
> Richard Jones wrote:
> > > My personal impression is that the question is not that well-posed:
> > > - if you assume infinite memory, you don't actually need a GC (and for 
> > > any input you can tweak the GC setting to make sure no collection 
> > > happens)
> >
> > How could "infinite" memory be implemented without affecting the runtime
> of programs on such a machine?
> 
> I guess O(1) lookup would actually be O(n^(1/3)) due to that speed of light
> thing. ;-)

Right.  Or if the memory requirement got really big, you'd
have to have a man to run around fetching tapes from a big
warehouse, which doesn't sound very O(1) to me ..

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones
Red Hat