Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!shelby!neon!carcoar!wilson
From: wilson@carcoar.Stanford.EDU (Paul Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Garbage collection -- difficulty, cost, generality
Summary: hmmm...
Message-ID: <1990Mar15.232035.147@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 15 Mar 90 23:20:35 GMT
References: <1990Mar13.011146.6019@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <2356@syma.sussex.ac.uk> <4836@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: wilson@carcoar.Stanford.EDU (Paul Wilson)
Organization: U. of Illinois at Chicago (UIC, *not* UofC or UIUC)
Lines: 38

In article <4836@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>
>aarons@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) wrote:
>> wilson@carcoar.Stanford.EDU (Paul Wilson) writes:
>>> Don't expect a fast language on stock hardware to have gc speed costs of
>>> less than about 10% on average.
>
>> [Poplog] varied between 1.5% and 3.2%.
>
>PS-algol uses about 2.9% according to some measurements done a couple of
>years ago.
>

Again, we may be having a little misunderstanding (generational vs. not, etc.),
but I find this interesting.

Questions:

  1) how fast is PS-Algol, flat out?  Less-than-great code quality can
     flatter gc performance. 

  2) what kind of gc was used? 

  3) what kind of programs were used for testing?

  4) did this involve persistent objects?

>--  Jack Campin   Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
>Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland   041 339 8855 x6044 work  041 556 1878 home
>JANET: jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk    BANG!net: via mcvax and ukc   FAX: 041 330 4913
>INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk   BITNET: via UKACRL   UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp

   -- Paul the garbageman

Paul R. Wilson                         
Software Systems Laboratory               lab ph.: (312) 996-9216
U. of Illin. at C. EECS Dept. (M/C 154)   wilson@bert.eecs.uic.edu
Box 4348   Chicago,IL 60680