On 4/10/13 11:56 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 05:55 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 04/10/2013 05:57 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2013 1:17 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>>>> I have yet to find anyone who can tell me why Go must have generics
>>>> with
>>>> a cogent argument that makes sense to me.
>>>
>>> ....
>>> What this means is the compiler (and language) needs NO KNOWLEDGE of
>>> what the GC needs. The library implementer is free to innovate whatever
>>> kind of tables are necessary. It means that radically different GCs can
>>> be built and swapped in and out without change to the compiler or
>>> language. It means that anyone who wants to build a better GC can do so
>>> without forking the compiler.
>>
>> What about precise tracking of stack references?
>
> /stack references/references on the stack/s

Zose do need some magic.

Andrei

On 4/10/2013 9:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> What about precise tracking of stack references?
> Zose do need some magic.

Yup.

On 4/10/2013 11:13 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/10/2013 9:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> What about precise tracking of stack references?
>> Zose do need some magic.
>
> Yup.


But I should amend that since D can call any code with a C interface, and has zero knowledge of what is on the C stack, and may also be handed blocks of C data of unknown types, there are limits to precise tracking of all references.

At best a D collector can be "mostly copying".