From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Han-Wen Nienhuys Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: GUILE GC -- Write barrier for vectors Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:22:41 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <15667.58849.671382.883437@meddo.cs.uu.nl> References: <15667.4827.763060.19585@meddo.cs.uu.nl> <15667.21636.174313.24740@blauw.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026811423 20501 127.0.0.1 (16 Jul 2002 09:23:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:23:43 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17UOYW-0005KP-00 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:23:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17UOY4-0001ob-00; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 05:23:12 -0400 Original-Received: from aurora.cs.uu.nl ([131.211.80.20] helo=mail.cs.uu.nl) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17UOXb-0001n0-00 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 05:22:43 -0400 Original-Received: from meddo.cs.uu.nl.cs.uu.nl (meddo.cs.uu.nl [131.211.80.91]) by mail.cs.uu.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58B11CB241; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:22:41 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Dirk Herrmann , guile-devel@gnu.org, jantien@xs4all.nl In-Reply-To: <15667.21636.174313.24740@blauw.xs4all.nl> X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under Emacs 21.2.1 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:811 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:811 hanwen@cs.uu.nl writes: > I'm reading the patent (gosh, what verbosity) -- but interestingly, > the claim is only made for not copying entire pages (cards in Scheme > terms), that are marked conservatively. If you one uses a second set > of mark bits, you could leave alone exactly those objects that are > marked conservatively (iso. the whole page). The price is that you > have another mark-bit vector (1.5 % memory overhead), that the free > space in the conservatively marked pages is fragmented, and that there > is more overhead (checking the marked-conservatively-bit) during the > copy phase. Actually, I can top that. If you store the range of cells that is marked conservatively, you can still beat the patent but avoid the 2nd bitvector overhead. All this (bitvector ptr, conservative-cell range, generation count and card) flags could even be stored in the 1st header cell. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | hanwen@cs.uu.nl | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/ _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel