On Aug 27, 5:16 pm, Juanjo <juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 27, 11:24 pm, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > perhaps ECL does not have something like schedule-finalization. I
> > think this is present in CMUCL, SBCL, Lispworks, and AllegroCL, at least.
>
> ECL does have finalization but this is an overkill for the problem in
> question -- it would slow down all bignum arithmetics in the Common
> Lisp due to the additional resources that the garbage collector needs
> for tracking down finalizable objects.
Is this a problem with the GC, GMP, or ??
While I have a certain admiration for the idea of a conservative GC,
I've been
suspicious of it as a permanent solution for a real system. (Compared
to,
for example, the generation-scavenging GCs in several other systems.)
While I have not made any specific comparisons, and the availability
of multi-gigabyte
RAM and largish memory caches has dramatically altered some aspect of
memory allocation, I do recall the early effects of generation
scavenging.
In particular the percent of time spent in GC dropped from 20-30% to
negligible.
I guess my question really is, whether anyone has a collection of
"things that would
work better in ECL with a different GC" and whether there are
alternatives under consideration.
RJF
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
