News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rust vs. Go. Parent comment

Re:Rust vs. Go by tomp on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @07:01PM (#13431694)
Yes, Azul's C4 paper states that they do use some "synchronisation" stop-the-world phases (although their previous GCs that had hardware/kernel read barriers might not have), but IIRC Doligez-Leroy GC doesn't (although I'm not sure it was ever properly implemented).

On the other hand, Shenandoah has an explicit synchronisation phase in its algorithm (not sure if that's a fundamental property of the algorithm or just a JVM limitation though). From [0] (that was 2 years ago, things might have improved since, but I can't find a more recent version).

> Pauses only long enough to scan root set

[0]: https://rkennke.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/shenandoahtake4....

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust vs. Go by nickik on Thursday January 19, 2017 @09:59AM (#13436249)
They had synchronization points on the hardware platform as well. The difference is that they had some amount of hardware support that made the thread check-in extremely fast.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust vs. Go by mike_hearn on Thursday January 19, 2017 @04:02AM (#13434241)
I think Zing has always had safe points.
[ Parent | on HN ]