why malloc/free instead of GC?
Michael Hicks <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.garbage-collection.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <1045507612.1760.58.camel@mwhlaptop> |
A number of performance studies (starting with Zorn in `92, but perhaps before?) and anecdotal evidence now suggests that there is little reason to use malloc/free over GC. Zorn states that the main shot against conservative GC is that it requires a larger memory footprint (and actually uses much of it). Another shot might be the unexpected latency resulting from GC, foiling soft real-time guarantees. My question: are there any studies that indicate under what conditions would benefit from avoiding GC for these reasons (putting aside the safety benefits of GC)? For example, what program characteristics would imply that using BDW would require significantly more memory than would using malloc/free? What sorts of programs would incur excessively long latencies during collection? I can certainly speculate about the answers to these questions (and would welcome list readers to do so), but I am curious if any published or informal studies have been done. While Zorn's study points out which benchmark programs require more memory than others when using BDW, it doesn't go into why that is the case (as far as I could see on skimming it). Thanks, Mike