Alternate GCs

[Nicholas Clark]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:42:17AM -0400, Andrew Whitworth wrote:

> Is anybody out there using or relying on the alternate GCs besides
> GMS? I think I want to rip the older ones out. Right now, because GCs
> are pluggable, we have to go through an indirect function call for
> every single GC API call, and the C optimizer can't really do anything
> with that. I want to rip out the alternate GC cores and flatten some
> of the call graphs, to give the C compiler some opportunities to
> optimize the hot paths. I will put together a branch soon, but I want
> to double-check nobody relies on the old GC cores for any purpose.
> 
> The idea of pluggable GCs is great in theory, but right now we only

The idea of pluggable GCs is great in theory, but I can't see how it can
be done (in practice, in a statically compiled language such as C) without
needing a function call at every single *possible* GC API call. That is,
a call is needed at any point where the union of the implementations of
supported GCs need it, even if it's a no-op for the currently chosen GC.
(Such as a call needed for actions for a write barrier, which always has
to be made, because a runtime pluggable system can't inline the test for
whether an invariant has become breached, or remove it entirely for a GC
that doesn't need write barriers.)

I think compile time flexibility should possible without runtime pain.
But no flexibility is cheaper to maintain.

Nicholas Clark