On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:06:25 PM UTC+2, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:01 AM, <canji...@qq.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > Generational and Compact gc have already been thought best practice. But > > golang doesn't adopt it. Who can tell me the reason? > > Now let's consider a generational GC. The point of a generational GC > relies on the generational hypothesis: that most values allocated in a > program are quickly unused, so there is an advantage for the GC to > spend more time looking at recently allocated objects.
>From a different angle/viewpoint, the point of a generational GC is to skip redundant work. Multiple runs of a non-generational GC might be performing repetitive work that can be avoided in the memory gets partitioned. It seems to me that looking at a generational GC from work redundancy viewpoint is slightly more general than the more commonly used generational hypothesis that most objects die young. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
