Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: [opencxx] Porting to MacOs X

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...>]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Shigeru Chiba wrote:

>
> From: Grzegorz Jakacki <ja...@he...>
> Subject: [Opencxx-users] Re: [opencxx] Porting to MacOs X
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:48:21 +0800 (CST)
>
> > > > > PS: If this does not work, however, there is possibly a way to get rid
> > > > > of GC at all with help of boost::shared_ptr<>.
> > >
> > > Memory management with smart pointers
> > > should be slower than with GC...
> >
> > Why? I do not disagree, but I am still looking for convincing argument.
>
> Yes, the performance depends on memory usage patterns.
>
> GC should work better if a large number of objects are allocated and
> soon deallocated before the next GC phase.  Suppose that 100 objects
> are allocated and then 90 of them are deallocated.  The deallocation
> cost with smart pointers is 90 * <time for free()>.  On the other hand,
> if GC (except reference counting GC) is used, the deallocation cost
> is 10 * <time for collecting a live object>.

Doesn't GC has to free those 90 dead (leaked) objects anyway?

Regards
Grzegorz

> I know this discussion is very rough, but my understanding is GC is
> rather fast under some circumstances.
>
> Chiba
>
>



##################################################################
# Grzegorz Jakacki                       Huada Electronic Design #
# Senior Engineer, CAD Dept.              1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang #
# tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074               Beijing 100015, China #
# Copyright (C) 2002 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. #
##################################################################