Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Physical counterpart to Pervasives.compare?
-
Pascal Cuoq
-
Christophe Raffalli
- Damien Doligez
-
Christophe Raffalli
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Physical counterpart to Pervasives.compare? |
On 2009-08-25, at 20:03, Christophe Raffalli wrote: > [...] and the minor heap is at > a higher adress than the major heap, That would be very hard to guarantee, given the current OS trend toward address randomization. > How much slower is the compacting major GC comparer > to the standard one ? First you do the GC, then you compact, so it's pure overhead but that's not the problem. The problem is that compaction is not incremental. -- Damien