Re: why malloc/free instead of GC?
"David F. Bacon" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.garbage-collection.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
hans, by "roundtrip" do you mean malloc+free? i don't understand your statement about proportionality to object size in GC. also, why do conservative collectors dislike large objects? is it because a floating point number could cause a dead large object to be retained? david ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boehm, Hans" <[email protected]> To: "'Greg Hudson '" <[email protected]>; "'Basile STARYNKEVITCH '" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [gclist] why malloc/free instead of GC? > I would add: > > GC object roundtrip times are pretty much unavoidably proportional to the object size, where malloc + free times can be nearly constant. If you allocate primarily large objects, malloc+free will be cheaper. (For sufficiently small objects, it usually isn't, at least based on my measurements. Conservative collectors like large objects even less.)