Let's address another GC misconception: that you can divide GC algorithms into "perfectly precise" ones like tracing and "imprecise" ones like reference counting without cycle collection.
-
-
on basically exactly this topic, if anyone hasn't read the unified theory of gc paper, it is one of my favoriteshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/221321424_A_unified_theory_of_garbage_collection …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's "precise" when you define reachability as the problem.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I say that conservative GC is more accurately called “risky GC” because you risk running out of memory. At least with exact GC, you can throw cycles at the problem. Yes, risks can be justified, and yes, a program might loop forever creating reachable memory but still...
-
You’re particularly talking about the risk of false pointers lying around? In practice that seems rare, and especially since conservative GC can usually incorporate *some* precision, knowing where the pointers aren’t.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.