Re: Ada GC

boehm@parc.xerox.com (Hans Boehm)
9 Feb 1996 12:06:11 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[9 earlier articles]
Re: Ada GC dewar@cs.nyu.edu (1996-02-04)
Re: Ada GC hbaker@netcom.com (1996-02-04)
Re: Ada GC redhawk@flash.net (Ken & Virginia Garlington) (1996-02-04)
Re: Ada GC rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC lph@SEI.CMU.EDU (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC ok@cs.rmit.edu.au (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC boehm@parc.xerox.com (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC ncohen@watson.ibm.com (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC boehm@parc.xerox.com (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC eachus@spectre.mitre.org (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC kweise@pluto.colsa.com (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC dewar@cs.nyu.edu (1996-02-10)
[7 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: boehm@parc.xerox.com (Hans Boehm)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.ada
Date: 9 Feb 1996 12:06:11 -0500
Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
References: 96-01-037 96-02-003 96-02-023
Keywords: Ada, GC, realtime

bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes:


>... (We may well see the same thing
>happen to C++ someday, although the technical problems are a bit more
>difficult for C++. I don't think much of the so-called "conservative"
>GC schemes -- especially for real-time.)


I have yet to hear anyone advocate conservative garbage collection for
hard real-time problems. Nonetheless, if I understand this correctly,
a language implementation that provided a conservative garbage
collector would still be no less usable for real-time programming than
current implementations, since such programs could continue to ignore
the language provided allocator, and provide their own.


Needless to say, I do believe that conservative GC is a reasonable
option for many non-real-time applications ...


Hans-J. Boehm
(boehm@parc.xerox.com)
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.