From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:28:00 +0200 Organization: LAAS-CNRS Message-ID: <87y7wh2sbz.fsf@laas.fr> References: <877j42r32u.fsf@laas.fr> <87irnmt0nk.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87fyipcpbz.fsf@laas.fr> <66e540fe0606010035l7fb513fg646da4c1d94920de@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1149150525 5283 80.91.229.2 (1 Jun 2006 08:28:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:28:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 01 10:28:43 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 1FliXh-0003eS-NJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:28:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FliXg-0002a9-WB for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:28:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FliXa-0002ZP-Tn for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:28:26 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FliXZ-0002Ya-3q for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:28:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FliXY-0002YS-NH for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:28:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.93.0.15] (helo=laas.laas.fr) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1Flidl-0002RF-3q for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:34:49 -0400 Original-Received: by laas.laas.fr (8.13.6/8.13.4) with SMTP id k518SK0Z016751; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:28:22 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: "Mikael Djurfeldt" X-URL: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 13 Prairial an 214 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEB1F5364 X-PGP-Key: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu Mail-Followup-To: "Mikael Djurfeldt" , guile-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <66e540fe0606010035l7fb513fg646da4c1d94920de@mail.gmail.com> (Mikael Djurfeldt's message of "Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:35:32 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at CNRS-LAAS 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:5953 Archived-At: Hi, "Mikael Djurfeldt" writes: > Yet, as long as the current GC is more efficient (as measured by > performance tests), there is no reason to switch, right? Well, it's still unclear whether the current GC is more efficient, and how much more if it is. Furthermore, the GBGC code is a few weeks old so it may be possible to tune it a bit more. IMO, although I'm quite concerned with performance, I don't think it should be the only criterion: maintainability and portability are important as well. The fact that Bigloo uses BGC also tends to reassure me: if Guile can someday perform as bad as Bigloo compiled code (or simply, as bad as its interpreter), then I'll be very happy. ;-) Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel