On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Benjamin Thaut <c...@benjamin-thaut.de> wrote: > > Am 16.10.2013 21:05, schrieb Sean Kelly: >> On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Benjamin Thaut <c...@benjamin-thaut.de> wrote: >>> >>> The problem is not that there are no GCs around in other languages which >>> satisfy certain requirements. The problem is actually implementing them in >>> D. I suggest that you read "The Garbage Collection Handbook" which explains >>> this in deep detail. I'm currently reading it, and I might write an article >>> about the entire D GC issue once I'm done with it. >> >> I think the short version is that D being able to directly call C code is a >> huge problem here. Incremental GCs all rely on the GC being notified when >> pointers are changed. We might be able to manage it for SafeD, but then >> SafeD would basically be its own language. > > I think a even bigger problem are structs. Because if you need write barriers > for pointers on the heap you are going to have a problem with structs. > Because you will never know if they are located on the heap or the stack. > Additionally making the stack percisely scannable and adding GC-Points will > require a lot of compiler support. And even if this is doable in respect to > DMD its going to be a big problem for GDC or LDC to change the codegen.
Yes, any pointer anywhere. I recall someone posting a doc about a compromise solution a few years back, but I'd have to do some digging to figure out what the approach was.
