3 ms·
Automatic trace definetly yes, however since they also removed GC support from the standard it's quite useless (exact object tracing is useless if you cannot ac
by whizzter 18d ago
Automatic trace definetly yes, however since they also removed GC support from the standard it's quite useless (exact object tracing is useless if you cannot accurately scan the stack).
Also co-routines with it's under the hood management of coroutine stack probably would've complicated GC support even more...
- pjmlp 18d agoC++11 GC was useless from the start, I don't get how it ended up being voted in. At the time the two main customers of having a C++ GC would be Unreal C++ and C++/CLI, the design that landed on the standard serves neither of them, thus no one adopted it.
- whizzter 18d agoPeeked a bit more at the C++ 11 stuff, it seems very Boehm specific and yes quite uesless (I doubt the C++/CLI people ever considered the stuff in the standard). Having written a bunch of more or less complete GC based runtimes, the boundary between C++ code and runtime code is often painful mostly due to GC tracking and reading the article I can only concur with what they're doing with Oilpan for V8/Chrome. Having had a way in C++ to interrogate the current stack and then trace objects (via C++26 reflections) would've sufficed and probably alleviated the need for a separate GC.
- pjmlp 18d agoYes indeed, and that is why it got removed from the standard eventually, however the question remains how was this even voted in. Which is why I became kind of vocal regarding existing practice, or at least preview for community feedback, as there are already several examples of stuff landing into the standard that were not properly baked to start with.
- pebal 18d agoThe standard provided no GC support. What was there was completely useless.
- whizzter 18d agoIt seemed very Boehm specific and yes quite uesless. Wrote a bit more in the sibling comment to pjmpl.