<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:50 PM, David T. Lewis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lewis@mail.msen.com">lewis@mail.msen.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 04:29:54PM -0700, Colin Putney wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, David T. Lewis <<a href="mailto:lewis@mail.msen.com">lewis@mail.msen.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > In the forseeable future, object memory sizes of more than one or two GB are of no practical use.<br>
><br>
> Why do you say that?<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>Well, basically the garbage collector has a lot of work to do if<br>
it's managing a lot of memory. Try making a large image and judge<br>
for yourself.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, but some of us are about to start work on a better GC :) VW has had users that have been using > 2Gb heaps for almost a decade. I should have a new GC running next year and it'd /better/ work well with > 2Gb heaps. </div>
<div><br></div><div>BTW, tags belong in the least significant bits because a) testing them involves smaller manifest constants and so smaller code size (*) and b) aligning objects on larger boundaries can have efficiency benefits (e.g. 64 bit writes to initialize objects) and that has the side-effect of making more tag bits available.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(*) yes testing the msb is cheap iff oop size == word size, but that's only 1 bit that's cheap to test</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>best,</div><div>Eliot </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>