On 12/19/2011 12:11 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 23:02:17 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
It is an unilateral improvement if both options are kept open. I don't
see a reason to cease support for the current GC model.
I believe that currently the plan does not include providing this choice.
That would strike me as odd. Andrei/Walter?
Furthermore, a generational GC performs much better than a simple
mark-sweep GC.
Unless you change the way references work, generational and "precise"
aspects of a GC are orthogonal.
You are right. I have had in mind a generational GC that uses a copying
collector for the nursery as this is what most state-of-the-art VM GCs do.
Also, D can't have a completely precise
GC as long as it has unions and can pass managed memory to C code.
We can change the way unions are layed out. The compiler can mark GC
memory passed to a C function as non-movable, or passing GC memory to a
C function can be made illegal if the GC is enabled.
