Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Precise GC (was Re: Do we really need types in OOPL's?)
Summary: "Precise" garbage collection does not leak memory
Message-ID: <1990Oct16.015230.24169@cbnewsc.att.com>
Date: 16 Oct 90 01:52:30 GMT
References: <736@tetrauk.UUCP> <18261.27131385@qut.edu.au> <563@roo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 29

In article <563@roo.UUCP>, boehm@parc.xerox.com (Hans Boehm) writes:
> "Precise" garbage collection is a rather imprecise concept and thus,
> I would argue, a funny absolute criterion to use in language selection.
> I know of many gradations of "conservativism" in garbage collection.

I was referring to "exact" garbage collection, which collects *all*
inaccessible storage.  My application must run continuously over long
periods of time without leaking memory.  *Any* degree of conservatism
is too conservative for me (in the matter of GC, anyway).

> 4) Pointer location information maintained on stack and registers (i.e. tagged
>    pointers or a compiler generated map of where pointers are at various
>    programs points).  I believe Standard ML of NJ, and the original KCL
>    fit here.

Bingo!

> Garbage collectors are never perfect.  But in my experience programmers
> manually managing storage are much less perfect still.  And programmers
> may also err in more disastrous ways.

I am certainly not advocating manual storage management.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.