5 ms·
I read this as "if it is on the stack and looks like a reference when you squint your eyes, then we treat it as a reference" compared to objects on the heap whe
by gmueckl 9y ago
I read this as "if it is on the stack and looks like a reference when you squint your eyes, then we treat it as a reference" compared to objects on the heap where the GC seems to know the exact location of all references.
- FullyFunctional 9y agoRight that's the standard conservative garbage collection. However, new results show that it's significantly worse than a precise collector (reference pending).
- BlackFingolfin 9y agoI'd love to see that reference, as I've not yet seen an example where this was true in practicd, but know several examples where it is definitely false (e.g. we use a modification of the Julia GC which uses consevative stack scanning to allow interop with another system, and it seems to perform very well).
- gmueckl 9y agoI think that only scanning the stack conservatively should not change much from a completely precise GC. The chances of misidentifying a potential reference to an enormous data structure that is collectable are pretty slim in a memory region as small as a typical stack. Scanning the entire heap is different because of its generally much bigger size. It's far more likely then to see references where there are none.
- FullyFunctional 9y agoSorry for the late follow up. Hopefully you're still around to notice. Apparently there was previous HN discussion on this, but I haven't seen it (or looked for it): https://www.excelsiorjet.com/blog/articles/conservative-gc-is-it-really-that-bad/ https://www.excelsiorjet.com/blog/articles/conservative-gc-i...