From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:07:44 +0100 Message-ID: <87lksgqv1r.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <877j42r32u.fsf@laas.fr> <87irnmt0nk.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87ac8x8g35.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1149207016 25571 80.91.229.2 (2 Jun 2006 00:10:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:10:16 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 02 02:10:06 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FlxEm-0000GH-1V for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:10:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FlxEl-0002qa-Dc for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:09:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FlxEh-0002qV-CK for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:09:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FlxEe-0002pr-TZ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:09:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FlxEe-0002pn-Rd for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:09:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FlxL0-0001QG-Jo for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:16:26 -0400 Original-Received: from laruns (host86-143-154-150.range86-143.btcentralplus.com [86.143.154.150]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785DE40A00B for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84FD6F70A for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 01:07:44 +0100 (BST) Original-To: Guile-Devel In-Reply-To: <87ac8x8g35.fsf@laas.fr> ( =?iso-8859-1?q?Ludovic_Court=E8s's_message_of?= "Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:55:58 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:5958 Archived-At: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > unless otherwise specified, every register and every piece of memory > is scanned for pointers, not only the heap (however, only heap > regions allocated via the GC allocation routines are scanned). I wonder if this is the main cause of BGC not performing as well as Guile's own GC? Guile's own GC knows, for example, that there's no point scanning the characters of a string, or the elements of a uniform vector, and that SMOB memory looks after itself. Does BGC give us any way to feed this kind of information in, so that BGC could avoid such scans in the same way Guile's GC does? Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel