• Mehrdad (3/3) Mar 04 2012 Are there any plans to fix the GC so that it actually _works_ (with
• Timon Gehr (2/5) Mar 04 2012 http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?GSOC_2012_Ideas
• Robert Jacques (3/6) Mar 04 2012 The GC actually works fairly well with normal buffer sizes for your exam...

"Mehrdad" <wfunction hotmail.com> writes:

Are there any plans to fix the GC so that it actually _works_ (with 
nontrivial buffer sizes)?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251 

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 03/04/2012 11:27 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
 Are there any plans to fix the GC so that it actually _works_ (with
 nontrivial buffer sizes)?

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251

http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?GSOC_2012_Ideas

"Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:27:25 -0600, Mehrdad <wfunction hotmail.com> wrote:
 Are there any plans to fix the GC so that it actually _works_ (with
 nontrivial buffer sizes)?

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7251

The GC actually works fairly well with normal buffer sizes for your example. It
even supports large *buffers* extremely well. But, your example isn't about
buffers. It's about array building. No language supports appending to a vector
at scale well; whether D's runtime crashing (i.e. fail early, fail often) vs
other languages' silent, massive performance and/or memory hit is better or
worse is debatable.

The right solution is to use a better algorithm: in D, you're supposed to use
appender. Now, the current appender does have its own issues,
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813), but hopefully I'll finish
putting together the pull request sometime next week.