Tim Peters <t...@python.org> added the comment:
Oh, I don't expect it to help appreciably - which is why I never did it ;-) It's aimed at something different, I think, than what you're after: reducing the burden of cyclic gc on objects that would otherwise soon be reclaimed by refcounting anyway. But such stuff is going to get reclaimed "soon" regardless, and saving it from getting scanned by gc at most once has limited potential. You seem aimed more at reclaiming _cyclic_ trash sooner. The hack I sketched would only help with that if a cycle in part B became "theoretically dead" before part A filled up enough to trigger another collection. But I have no guess as to the distribution of cycle lifetimes, other than that it's bound to vary a lot across programs, and will be multi-modal. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39143> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
