On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 00:07, KHMan wrote:
Alex Queiroz wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Linker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 22:30, Mike Pall 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.
To put it in another way... Data needed, otherwise it's
hand-waving!!! :-) ;-)