Re: Binarytrees benchmark results

[Alex Queiroz <asandroq@...>]

Hallo,

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Linker <linker.m.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 22:30, Mike Pall <mikelu-0912@mike.de> wrote:
>>
>> But neither is a substitute for a bump allocator. Unfortunately,
>> using such an allocator implies the need for a moving GC. The
>> current Lua GC is non-moving. Revising this fundamental design
>> choice is very complicated while keeping the current Lua/C API.
>
> I think that a moving GC is bad for CPU which has a multi-cache modern
> architecture .
>

     One single factor will hardly decide if a moving GC or a
mark-and-sweep one is better. Point in case, the generational GC
allocates memory faster.

-- 
-alex
@asandroq
http://www.ventonegro.org/