Show simple item record

Garbage Collection is Fast, But a Stack is Faster

dc.date.accessioned2004-10-08T20:34:37Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-24T10:16:14Z
dc.date.available2004-10-08T20:34:37Z
dc.date.available2018-11-24T10:16:14Z
dc.date.issued1994-03-01en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/6622
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.aust.edu.ng/xmlui/handle/1721.1/6622
dc.description.abstractPrompted by claims that garbage collection can outperform stack allocation when sufficient physical memory is available, we present a careful analysis and set of cross-architecture measurements comparing these two approaches for the implementation of continuation (procedure call) frames. When the frames are allocated on a heap they require additional space, increase the amount of data transferred between memory and registers, and, on current architectures, require more instructions. We find that stack allocation of continuation frames outperforms heap allocation in some cases by almost a factor of three. Thus, stacks remain an important implementation technique for procedure calls, even in the presence of an efficient, compacting garbage collector and large amounts of memory.en_US
dc.format.extent94049 bytes
dc.format.extent389294 bytes
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.titleGarbage Collection is Fast, But a Stack is Fasteren_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView
AIM-1462.pdf389.2Kbapplication/pdfView/Open
AIM-1462.ps.Z94.04Kbapplication/octet-streamView/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record