Re: New binaries

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:32 PM, talksmall <[email protected]> wr=
ote:

> On Dec 31, 7:53=A0pm, Dave Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, the memory-footprint/image-size isn't my primary concern,
>> although anything that got moved-around/garbage-collected and hence
>> would bump actual memory usage following a fork() would be an issue.
>
> Well, regardless of whether or not things get moved around, a full
> garbage collection will write to every page in object memory that
> contains part of an object accessible from the roots. The garbage
> collector involves inverting every oop (pointer to an object) during
> the mark phase. What is your interest in forking the VM?

I think you are using "fork" in two different senses: Dave in the
sense of forking processes, Stephen in the sense of forking codebases.

Yours for improved communication,

--=20
GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to strongtalk-general+unsubscrib=
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strong=
talk-general?hl=3Den.