At 2:58 AM -0400 8/21/02, Mike Lambert wrote:
> > At 6:16 PM -0400 8/20/02, John Porter wrote:
>> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> >> I expect a UINTVAL should be sufficient to hold the counter.
>> >
>> >Why? Because you don't expect a perl process to run longer
>> >than a couple hours? Or because rollover won't matter?
>>
>> Rollover won't really matter much, if we're careful with how we
>> document things. Still, a UINTVAL should be at least 2^32--do you
>> really think we'll have that many GC generations in a few hours?
>
>Currently, 5000 iterations of life execute in 6 seconds, with 42K DOD
>runs. At that rate, we have a rollover every week. Not really a problem,
>but if we have code which doesn't allow for rollover, it is a problem.
That feels like we're doing far too many DOD runs there, but that's a
tuning issue.
[Sensible stuff snipped]
>So in conclusion, generational systems can be done using at most a byte or
>a short, and it's even possible to do them with nothing at all. So until
>the need arises, I don't think the generations count would be worth it.
>Especially since I plan to try and prove the need for a header pool
>pointer at some point. :)
Fair enough. It was a fairly stupid suggestion, as we already *have*
the counter in the interpreter, and its reasonably obvious that it's
not a good idea to use this data for anything other than
informational purposes.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
