From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: hanwen@byrd.xs4all.nl (Han-Wen Nienhuys) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:24:22 +0000 (UTC) Organization: LilyPond development Message-ID: References: <877j42r32u.fsf@laas.fr> <87fyipcpbz.fsf@laas.fr> <66e540fe0606010035l7fb513fg646da4c1d94920de@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: hanwen@lilypond.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1149459889 24094 80.91.229.2 (4 Jun 2006 22:24:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 05 00:24:47 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 1Fn11Z-00007r-8P for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:24:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fn11Y-0005j8-Mw for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:24:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fn11T-0005iy-FS for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:24:39 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fn11S-0005im-5t for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:24:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fn11R-0005ij-Qu for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:24:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1Fn18S-0006f2-GB for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:31:52 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Fn11O-00006I-7g for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:24:34 +0200 Original-Received: from muurbloem.xs4all.nl ([213.84.26.127]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:24:34 +0200 Original-Received: from hanwen by muurbloem.xs4all.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:24:34 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: muurbloem.xs4all.nl X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: hanwen@byrd.xs4all.nl (Han-Wen Nienhuys) 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:5963 Archived-At: In article <66e540fe0606010035l7fb513fg646da4c1d94920de@mail.gmail.com>, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote: >> I believe we would never have sufficient manpower to compete with it >> (and it seems that most other language runtime implementors arrived to >> the same conclusion). > >Yet, as long as the current GC is more efficient (as measured by >performance tests), there is no reason to switch, right? There is a reason. It is actually quite tricky to get the machinery of SMOB mark functions to work exactly right in all cases. I have many late-night debugging sessions that can attest to this. BGC will make it easier to write GUILE extensions, because memory managements will be less of a headache: - no need for mark() functions - no need for scm_remember_upto_here() calls - no more tricky interactions between half-finished SMOBs and GC mark functions - no need for scm_gc_protect_object() _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel