On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:31:00AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Again, I'm not sure the portability fixes are a real issue. > There is nothing that prevents ggc-zone from being the default on > systems with mmap, and ggc-page the default elsewhere. > > One of the reasons that the portability patches were rejected is that if > we want to make ggc-zone copying/generational, any barrier style way of > doing so will probably involve mprotect. > > I've not seen a system that supports mprotect but not mmap. > > In addition, if it was decided that in order to make ggc-zone the > default, it would have to support non-mmap systems, i would accept the > portability patches.
Yes; I think that the zone collector as it is today (my fixes to it postdate that patch rejection) makes the idea of removing ggc-page more attractive than it was then. I think that with a reasonable amount of testing and tuning on different host systems, it might be reasonable to use it as the default - even if generational collection is disabled by the lack of mmap. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery
