Re: [Gcl-devel] Boyer benchmark results

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!

Raymond Toy <address@hidden> writes:

> >>>>> "Camm" == Camm Maguire <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>     Camm> Paul has separately written speculating on cache.  The only logic I
>     Camm> can conceive of being behind these numbers is if 1) gcl's assembler
>     Camm> output via gcc is faster in cache then that output by cmucl, 2) 
> cmucl
>     Camm> either makes use of a superior copying gc algorithm for the cons
>     Camm> storage (improving locality), or makes use of explicit prefetch
>     Camm> instructions for much better memory access times than gcl, at least
>     Camm> for cons storage, and 3) clisp also does something like 2), but not 
> as
> 
> CMUCL certainly has a copying GC.  Don't know if it is superior or
> not.  AFAIK, CMUCL doesn't do any kind of explicit prefetch---the

Just wondering if any consensus has developed over the years on the
best general purpose gc algorithm.

Take care, 

> compiler is not smart enough to do that by itself.
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah