4 ms·

Yeah people always find that file surprising. I think the reason for it being soo large is that the GC is shared across all the .NET versions, so having it in

Yeah people always find that file surprising. I think the reason for it being soo large is that the GC is shared across all the .NET versions, so having it in one file has some advantages. See https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/408 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/408 for a discussion on reorganizing it.

LeanderK 10y ago
sadly, no. Excerpt from the issue > In #401 @cnblogs-dudu referenced a post explaining that the GC was machine-generated from LISP. Since gc.cpp is not a real source code (just intermediate code), but the lisp code is, should it be more useful to publish the lisp source and the transpiler (Source-to-source compiler) for LISP -> CPP?
- matthewwarren 10y ago
  It's my understanding that the LISP -> CPP was only done in the beginning and is no longer carried out. I.e. all recent development is done directly in the .cpp source. There's a reply from a Microsoft employee that seems to confirm this, see https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/408#issuecomment-78081022 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/408#issuecomment-78...
  - teh_klev 10y ago
    Here's a comment by Patrick Dussud on an old blog entry explaining the LISP origins of the GC: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/patrick_dussud/2006/11/21/how-it-all-startedaka-the-birth-of-the-clr/#comment-163 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/patrick_dussud/2006/11/21/h... I thought I knew a thing or two about .NET, having used it since beta days, I had no idea LISP was used to bootstrap the original GC code. Fascinating stuff. I've archived it here just in case: http://archive.is/1qk25 http://archive.is/1qk25 Patrick is also interviewed on Channel9 and he talks about the GC. Not watched it yet: https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Patrick-Dussud-Garbage-Collection-Past-Present-and-Future https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Patrick-Dussud-Ga...
    - matthewwarren 10y ago
      Yeah that's a great video, he really knows his stuff!

LeanderK 10y ago

sadly, no. Excerpt from the issue > In #401 @cnblogs-dudu referenced a post explaining that the GC was machine-generated from LISP. Since gc.cpp is not a real source code (just intermediate code), but the lisp code is, should it be more useful to publish the lisp source and the transpiler (Source-to-source compiler) for LISP -> CPP?

matthewwarren 10y ago
It's my understanding that the LISP -> CPP was only done in the beginning and is no longer carried out. I.e. all recent development is done directly in the .cpp source. There's a reply from a Microsoft employee that seems to confirm this, see https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/408#issuecomment-78081022 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/408#issuecomment-78...
- teh_klev 10y ago
  Here's a comment by Patrick Dussud on an old blog entry explaining the LISP origins of the GC: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/patrick_dussud/2006/11/21/how-it-all-startedaka-the-birth-of-the-clr/#comment-163 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/patrick_dussud/2006/11/21/h... I thought I knew a thing or two about .NET, having used it since beta days, I had no idea LISP was used to bootstrap the original GC code. Fascinating stuff. I've archived it here just in case: http://archive.is/1qk25 http://archive.is/1qk25 Patrick is also interviewed on Channel9 and he talks about the GC. Not watched it yet: https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Patrick-Dussud-Garbage-Collection-Past-Present-and-Future https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Patrick-Dussud-Ga...
  - matthewwarren 10y ago
    Yeah that's a great video, he really knows his stuff!