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 01:01:13 +0100 Message-ID: <87pshsqvcm.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <877j42r32u.fsf@laas.fr> <87irnmt0nk.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1149206495 24154 80.91.229.2 (2 Jun 2006 00:01:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 02 02:01:33 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 1Flx6a-0007gC-BJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:01:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Flx6Z-0001pI-V6 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:01:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Flx6W-0001p1-01 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:01:28 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Flx6U-0001nj-4k for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:01:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Flx6T-0001nM-Sj for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:01:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FlxCp-0000zQ-Ch for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:07:59 -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 06BA240A00B; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:01:24 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE9E6F70A; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 01:01:13 +0100 (BST) Original-To: hanwen@lilypond.org In-Reply-To: (Han-Wen Nienhuys's message of "Thu, 1 Jun 2006 01:17:29 +0000 (UTC)") 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:5957 Archived-At: lilydev@muurbloem.xs4all.nl (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: > Boehm is generational, AFAIK. > > Virtually everyone uses BGC. GCJ, MzScheme, BigLoog, GNU Obj-C, etc. > > See, > > http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/ > > for a longer list. Thanks; lots of interesting stuff there. > By using BGC, you potentially loose a bit of performance, since BGC > isn't specialized for LISP/Scheme, but you get a system that is much > better overall researched and tuned. I like the "better research" and the maintainability angles, but I don't see how we can say that BGC is "better tuned" than Guile's own GC, if current data shows it performing less well. Perhaps we aren't yet running a truly representative set of benchmarks though? Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel