Garbage Collection is Fast, but a Stack is Faster Export

@techreport{citeulike:802179, abstract = {Prompted 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...}, author = {Miller, James S. and Rozas, Guillermo J.}, citeulike-article-id = {802179}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.52.1119}, keywords = {gc, stackless}, number = {AIM-1462}, posted-at = {2007-11-07 14:30:17}, priority = {0}, title = {Garbage Collection is Fast, but a Stack is Faster}, url = {http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.52.1119}, year = {1994} }

TY - RPRT ID - citeulike:802179 L3 - citeulike-article-id:802179 N2 - Prompted 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... IS - AIM-1462 TI - Garbage Collection is Fast, but a Stack is Faster KW - gc KW - stackless AU - Miller, James AU - Rozas, Guillermo PY - 1994/// UR - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.52.1119 ER -