From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Han-Wen Nienhuys Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Why bother porting Guile to BDW-GC? Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:27:43 -0200 Message-ID: References: <87skq2jjl4.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: hanwen@xs4all.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1226197820 29539 80.91.229.12 (9 Nov 2008 02:30:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 02:30:20 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 09 03:31:23 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Kz05A-0003V3-Sa for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:31:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55852 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kz043-0002cl-GP for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:30:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kz040-0002cQ-8w for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:30:08 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kz03x-0002c6-UN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:30:08 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60726 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kz03x-0002c2-N9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:30:05 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:37683 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kz03x-0001CE-4D for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:30:05 -0500 Original-Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Kz03u-0000Ri-Uu for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:30:03 +0000 Original-Received: from 201.80.54.37 ([201.80.54.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:30:02 +0000 Original-Received: from hanwen by 201.80.54.37 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:30:02 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 23 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 201.80.54.37 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:7813 Archived-At: Han-Wen Nienhuys escreveu: > Ludovic Courtès escreveu: >> Hello Guilers! >> >> Below are some of the points (in no particular order) that IMO can make >> it worthwhile to use the Boehm-Demers-Weiser GC [0] in Guile instead of >> Guile's historical GC, from an engineering viewpoint. >> > > I'm all for scrapping code; here are my concerns: > > - what is the performance impact? > > - does BDW GC handle weak references correctly? > > - What about various (undoubtedly little used) areas where GC interacts > with the interpreter: port de-allocation, guardians, etc. I saw that you mentioned these in your mail. I wonder if it feasible to provide backward compatibility if we move to BDW. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen