Am 13.10.2013 16:21, schrieb qznc:
> On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 15:43:46 UTC, ponce wrote:
>> At least on Internet forums, there seems to be an entire category of
>> people dismissing D immediately because it has a GC.
>>
>> Whatever rational rebutal we have it's never heard.
>> The long answer is that it's not a real problem. But it seems people
>> want a short answer. It's also an annoying fight to have since so much
>> of it is based on zero data.
>
> Just stumbled upon this paper "A Study of the Scalability of Stop-the-world
> Garbage Collectors on Multicores". I have not read it in detail, but the
> conclusion says:
>
> "Our evaluation suggests that today, there is no conceptual reason to
> believe that the pause time of a stop-the-world GC will increase with
> the increasing number of cores and memory size of multicore hardware."
>
> http://pagesperso-systeme.lip6.fr/Gael.Thomas/research/biblio/2013/gidra13asplos-naps.pdf
>


Thanks for the paper, as language geek I love to read them.

--
Paulo

On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:58:07 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 09:56:10 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>
>> This is not really what's stopping the porting, is a problem, but an independent one. My idea was to port the GC as it is in Tango, and then see how to overcome its limitations.
>
> I tried this a while back, but the GC in Druntime has changed a bunch since it diverged from Tango, and some or all of those changed need to be applied to your concurrent collector before it can be used.  Like you, I ended up not having the time for this.  I think you'd need to do a diff of the current GC code vs. the code as it was originally checked into SVN on DSource.

My plan was actually to redo all the patches I did to Tango (which were A LOT) on druntime master, adapting them as I go (I even started doing that but got busy after just 2 or 3 :S). I hope I can resume the work soon!