Thanks, Sandro. Good reference. It was in my queue, but I hadn't gotten to it yet.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Sandro Magi <[email protected]> wrote: > Ha, sorry about that, just Bacon et al's past papers on cycle collection: > > [1] > researcher.ibm.com/files/us-**bacon/Paz05Efficient.pdf<http://researcher.ibm.com/files/us-bacon/Paz05Efficient.pdf> > > > > On 15/10/2013 11:47 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > >> Misplaced referent. What is [1]. ?? >> >> On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Sandro Magi wrote: >> >> On 15/10/2013 11:07 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: >>> >>> If we want to have a sensible performance story on*any* of these >>>> machines, >>>> we really need to push hard to get the required heap footprint as close >>>> to >>>> (1 * actual need) as we can. >>>> >>>> >>> According to [1], RC is much better than tracing for tight heaps. Of >>> course, that paper doesn't really account for long-term fragmentation. >>> >>> Sandro >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> bitc-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.coyotos.org/**mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev<http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
