HN Gopher Feed (2017-11-28) - page 1 of 10
Emacs with the SpiderMonkey garbage collector
75 points by nochhttp://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2017-11/msg00575.html
dilap - 40 minutes ago
my emacs gc strategy: disable the gc. do manual collections by
restarting every now and then.
fusiongyro - 27 minutes ago
Wow! My gut instinct would have been to try Boehm, but I have no
idea why one would prefer one GC over another with Emacs.
marktangotango - 1 hours ago
The main difference between the current mark-and-sweep garbage
collector and the SpiderMonkey garbage collector is that the latter
is a copying garbage collector and precise, meaning that objects
may change address during GC and that only typed values, not memory
locations that might or might not be, must be traceOut of all the
types of gc out there going to a copying gc seems not very
compelling. Mark and sweep is not bad at all (well understood,
straight forward to implement), and you don't have to worry about
double dereferencing pointers (ie some implementations of Cheneys,
I don't know if spidermonkey refercences are indirect pointers to
one of two buffers).
S4M - 45 minutes ago
Could someone explain, for someone not familiar with low level
programming, what would be the advantages of using another garbage
collector in Emacs?
taeric - 11 minutes ago
This is asked in the thread, though I'm not sure I saw a good
answer, yet.Basic answer is if there are complaints with the
garbage collector causing stalls or other hiccups, then moving to
a faster one could help.Now, this implies that a new one would,
ipso facto, be faster. That is not guaranteed. But, garbage
collectors have gotten quite effective in modern times. Extra
memory helps, of course.