NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/object/2991

Text File | 1992-07-24 | 1.6 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: comp.object
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!zrz.tu-berlin.de!mailgzrz.tu-berlin.de!axel
From: [e-mail] (Axel Mahler)
Subject: Re: Is GC needed?
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 22 Jul 92 19:06:28 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Manager)
Nntp-Posting-Host: avalanche.cs.tu-berlin.de
Organization: /home/stone/axel/.organization
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:46:32 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Smith) writes:
   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

   >Have a little imagination, leave room for other paradigms.  I am less
   >fortunate than most people in that I don't know the perfect solution,
   >but I do think about it and if I come up with anything y'all'll be
   >the first to know :-).

   Okay, I'll bite.  What *is* one alternative to GC besides malloc/free???

Have there been any attempts to employ multi-processor shared-memory
computer architectures for solving the GC problem ? Why not have a
dedicated GC processor that frees the application from worrying about
memory management ? I've not given the idea a great deal of thought, so
it might actually be stupid or unfeasible. Comments ?

Axel.
--
===============================================================================
Axel Mahler, Tech.Univ. Berlin
E-Mail: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
Voice: [phone]