Andreas Raab writes:
 > Just one question: What's the timer accuracy on your platform? On 
 > Windows (where I took my measures) I'm guaranteeing an effective 1ms 
 > resolution but I'm not sure you get this on Linux (there have been 
 > issues with that in the past because, stupidly, many kernels are 
 > compiled with timer resolutions of >20ms). And timer resolution matters 
 > a lot for these benchmarks.

The timer resolution is less than 3.5 microseconds. I measured with a
little C loop. 1ms is definately not accurate enough as an incremental
GC takes 0.3 milliseconds on my machine.

 > > Modifying the GC to use a copying collector for new space will speed
 > > up GC performance noticably.
 > 
 > Now *that* would be a thing that I'd like to see... I would expect that 
 > to have far more of a real-world impact.

I'd love to see a better GC too. But on my system I've yet to see the
incremental GC take most of the time however that should change as
Exupery becomes useful.

Bryce