-
-
Replying to @pcwalton3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @true_droid
@true_droid@mraleph@psnively For example, render trees in Servo. The lifetimes are so complex I RC'd them; the overhead isn't noticeable.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton
@pcwalton@true_droid@psnively when you say "overhead isn't noticeable" you mean you removed RC put GC in and compared perf?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mraleph
@mraleph@true_droid@psnively No, overhead versus manual memory management. I suspect global stop the world GC would be worse.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton
@mraleph@true_droid@psnively i.e. during layout the ref counts remain untouched. Whereas with thread safe GC you must stop the world.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton
@pcwalton@true_droid@psnively if recounts remain untouched that means you are no allocating on refcounted heap - no need for GC either ;)2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mraleph
@mraleph@true_droid@psnively (b) In most GC'd systems many more allocations are on the GC heap than in Rust/Servo.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton
@pcwalton@true_droid@psnively (I agree though that random GC might now have best characteristics, but custom one most likely will)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@mraleph @true_droid @psnively Sounds like you want the programmer to have fine-grained control over memory—exactly my point :)
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.