dsimcha Wrote: > 3. This one is an order of magnitude less likely than the other two to > actually get implemented, at least by me, but how about thread-local > allocators so you can call malloc() without taking a lock? I vaguely remember > Sean saying he was working on that a while back, but I never heard anything > about it again. It's probably best to wait for shared to be implemented for > this so that unshared objects can also be collected w/o stopping the world, > but we should start at least discussing this now.
I actually started working on this a while back and then set it aside to take care of some other things. I'm planning to revisit it once the concurrency model is reasonably sorted out, since such a GC is pretty much useless until then anyway.
