Search Results

Search found 992 results on 40 pages for 'garbage'.

Page 1/40 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Why Garbage Collection if smart pointers are there

    - by Gulshan
    This days, so many languages are garbage collected. Even it is available for C++ by third parties. But, C++ has RAII and smart pointers. So, what's the point of using garbage collection? Is it doing something extra? And in other languages like C#, if all the references are treated as smart pointers(keeping RAII aside), by specification and by implementation, will there be still any need of garbage collectors? If no, then why this is not so?

    Read the article

  • Are primitive types garbage collected in Android?

    - by snctln
    I know this may be a dumb question, but my background is more in c++ and managing my own memory. I am currently cutting down every single allocation that I can from one of my games to try and reduce the frequency of garbage collection and perceived "lag", so for every variable that I create that is an Object (String and Rect for example) I am making sure that I create it before hand in my constructor and not create temporary variables in simple 10 line functions... (I hope that makes sense) Anyways I was working though it some more tonight and I realized that I may be completely wrong about my assumption on garbage collection and primitive types (int, boolean, float) are these primitive type variables that I create in a 10 line function that gets called 20 times a second adding to my problem of garbage collection? So a year ago every few seconds I would see a message in logcat like GC freed 4010 objects / 484064 bytes in 101ms Now I see that message every 15-90 seconds or so... So to rephrase my question: Are primitive types (int, float, boolean, etc) included when seeing this message?

    Read the article

  • Garbage collection when compiling to C

    - by Jules
    What are the techniques of garbage collection when compiling a garbage collected language to C? I know of two: maintain a shadow stack that saves all roots explicitly in a data structure use a conservative garbage collector like Boehm's The first technique is slow, because you have to maintain the shadow stack. Potentially every time a function is called, you need to save the local variables in a data structure. The second technique is also slow, and inherently does not reclaim all garbage because of using a conservative garbage collector. My question is: what is the state of the art of garbage collection when compiling to C. Note that I do not mean a convenient way to do garbage collection when programming in C (this is the goal of Boehm's garbage collector), just a way to do garbage collection when compiling to C.

    Read the article

  • Reasons why one should not call the garbage collector directly.

    - by Shimrod
    Hi everyone, I'm currently writing a paper for my company, about how to avoid calling the garbage collector directly from the code (when playing with COM objects for instance). I know this is a bad practice, and should be only considered in very rare cases, but I can't seem to find a way to tell why it should be avoided. And I don't want to rely on the "The G.C. is smarter than you" principle (even if it is the truth :-) ) So can you tell me some clues about why you think one should avoid to call the garbage collector directly ? (performance impact?) Or maybe if you have links about this particular topic, they would be very helpful. Thanks in advance !

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net 4.5 Garbage Collection Improvement

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/06/24/asp.net-4.5-garbage-collection-improvement.aspxI just read Five Great .NET Framework 4.5 Features on CodeProject by Shivprasad koirala. Feature 5 in his article mentions the GC background cleanup and has a good explanation of the work the GC has to do for ASP.Net on the server. “Garbage collector is one real heavy task in a .NET application. And it becomes heavier when it is an ASP.NET application. ASP.NET applications run on the server and a lot of clients send requests to the server thus creating loads of objects, making the GC really work hard for cleaning up unwanted objects.” “To overcome the above problem, server GC was introduced. In server GC there is one more thread created which runs in the background. This thread works in the background and keeps cleaning…objects thus minimizing the load on the main GC thread. Due to double GC threads running, the main application threads are less suspended, thus increasing application throughput. To enable server GC, we need to use the gcServer XML tag and enable it to true.” <configuration> <runtime> <gcServer enabled="true"/> </runtime> </configuration> This is not done by default. The MSDN information page says “There are only two garbage collection options, workstation or server. For single-processor computers, the default workstation garbage collection should be the fastest option. Either workstation or server can be used for two-processor computers. Server garbage collection should be the fastest option for more than two processors. Use the GCSettingsIsServerGC property to determine if server garbage collection is enabled.” “In the .NET Framework 4 and earlier versions, concurrent garbage collection is not available when server garbage collection is enabled. Starting with the .NET Framework 4.5, server garbage collection is concurrent. To use non-concurrent server garbage collection, set the <gcServer> element to true and the <gcConcurrent> element to false. “ So if you’re using ASP.Net 4.5 and have a multi-core server, you should try turning on the Server Garbage Collection and do some profiling to see if it improves the performance of your site.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to use Boehm garbage collector only for the part of the program?

    - by bialix
    I've read article in LinuxJournal about Boehm-Demers-Weiser garbage collector library. I'm interesting to use it in my library instead of my own reference counting implementation. I have only one question: is it possible to use gc only for my shared library and still use malloc/free in the main application? I'm not quite understand how gc checks the heap so I'm worrying about performance of gc in that case and possible side effects.

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't C++ have a garbage collector?

    - by Jason Baker
    I'm not asking this question because of the merits of garbage collection first of all. My main reason for asking this is that I do know that Bjarne Stroustrup has said that C++ will have a garbage collector at some point in time. With that said, why hasn't it been added? There are already some garbage collectors for C++. Is this just one of those "easier said than done" type things? Or are there other reasons it hasn't been added (and won't be added in C++0x)? Cross links: Garbage collectors for C++ EDIT: Just to clarify, I understand the reasons why C++ didn't have a garbage collector when it was first created. I'm wondering why the collector can't be added in.

    Read the article

  • iPhone, No Garbage Collection: What About MonoTouch?

    - by yar
    It's well known that Apple does not provide automatic garbage collection on the iPhone to prolong battery life. Yet MonoTouch apps, which reportedly run perfectly on the iPhone (and many are sold through the AppStore, therefore are approved by Apple), do have automatic garbage collection. Is this automatic garbage collection, or does MonoTouch merely manage all the retain/release stuff for you? If it is automatic garbage collection, wouldn't that be a drain on battery? Edit: If your answer to #1 is "yes" and your answer to #2 is "no," why?

    Read the article

  • Java Garbage Collection

    - by pietervn
    I was wondering about the garbage collection that takes place in Java. Is it really able to handle all objects that aren't used and free up the most possible memory? I also want to know how does the Java garbage collection compare to another language like lets say C#? And then, how does the automatic garbage collection measure up against manual collection from a language like C?

    Read the article

  • Difference between background and concurrent garbage collection?

    - by marco.ragogna
    I read that with .NET Framework 4 the current garbage collection implementation is replaced: The .NET Framework 4 provides background garbage collection. This feature replaces concurrent garbage collection in previous versions and provides better performance. At this page there is an explanation how it works but I am not sure I understood it. In practical world application what is the benefit of this new GC implementation? Is it a feature that could be use to push for a transition from 3.5 or previous to 4.0?

    Read the article

  • Why do garbage collectors freeze execution?

    - by Martin
    I was thinking about garbage collection on the way home, and I began wondering, why does the garbage collector totally freeze execution of a program? Personally I would have designed it to block any threads which try to allocate a new object, but threads which were running would be left alone. I can't imagine any situation where this would be a problem compared to how a garbage collector currently works.

    Read the article

  • Force full garbage collection when memory occupation goes beyond a certain threshold

    - by Silvio Donnini
    I have a server application that, in rare occasions, can allocate large chunks of memory. It's not a memory leak, as these chunks can be claimed back by the garbage collector by executing a full garbage collection. Normal garbage collection frees amounts of memory that are too small: it is not adequate in this context. The garbage collector executes these full GCs when it deems appropriate, namely when the memory footprint of the application nears the allotted maximum specified with -Xmx. That would be ok, if it wasn't for the fact that these problematic memory allocations come in bursts, and can cause OutOfMemoryErrors due to the fact that the jvm is not able to perform a GC quickly enough to free the required memory. If I manually call System.gc() beforehand, I can prevent this situation. Anyway, I'd prefer not having to monitor my jvm's memory allocation myself (or insert memory management into my application's logic); it would be nice if there was a way to run the virtual machine with a memory threshold, over which full GCs would be executed automatically, in order to release very early the memory I'm going to need. Long story short: I need a way (a command line option?) to configure the jvm in order to release early a good amount of memory (i.e. perform a full GC) when memory occupation reaches a certain threshold, I don't care if this slows my application down every once in a while. All I've found till now are ways to modify the size of the generations, but that's not what I need (at least not directly). I'd appreciate your suggestions, Silvio P.S. I'm working on a way to avoid large allocations, but it could require a long time and meanwhile my app needs a little stability

    Read the article

  • actionscript 3.0 garbage collection with casalib ?

    - by algro
    I would love to see an actual example how to use the casalib-garbage-collection. I used the destroy method like in the description: casa-lib description If I have a Loader in a Subclass, do I also have to use the CasaLibLoader? Do I have still to care about all Instances/Eventlisteners to do proper garbage collection? If yes, whats the advantage of casalib-garbage-collection? I assumed to call destroy on a Casalib-Sprite and then it would destroy all its subclasses and references, and therefore safe memory. It would be awesome to get an easy instruction. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Is eclipse's Garbage Collector different than the default?

    - by Savvas Dalkitsis
    From questions posted here and an old one of mine I have created the impression that you cannot explicitly run the Java Garbage Collector whenever you please. If you call it, you simply instruct the system to call it whenever it can or thinks is appropriate. But in eclipse, if you press the "Run Garbage Collector" button you see an immediate reduction in memory usage. How is that possible? Is eclipse using a different Garbage Collector, does it have access to some secret API that we don't or is my conception of how the GC works wrong?

    Read the article

  • Garbage collection in Perl

    - by srikfreak
    Unlike Java, Perl uses reference count for garbage collection. I have tried searching some previous questions which speak about C++ RAII and smart pointers and Java GC but have not understood how Perl deals with the circular referencing problem. Can anyone explain how Perl's garbage collector deals with circular references? Is there any way to reclaim circular referenced memory which are no longer used by the program or does Perl just ignores this problem altogether?

    Read the article

  • Summary of the last decade of garbage collection?

    - by Ben Karel
    I've been reading through the Jones & Lin book on garbage collection, which was published in 1996. Obviously, the computing world has changed dramatically since then: multicore, out-of-order chips with large caches, and even larger main memory in desktops. The world has also more-or-less settled on the x86 and ARM microarchitectures for most consumer-facing systems. How has the field of garbage collection changed since the seminal book was published?

    Read the article

  • Objective-c garbage collection

    - by Chris
    If garbage collection is not required: - (void) awakeFromNib{ //Create the NSStatusBar and set its length statusItem = [[[NSStatusBar systemStatusBar] statusItemWithLength:NSSquareStatusItemLength] retain]; ... Do I have to release that? And if I do, would that be in a finalize method or dealloc method? If garbage collection is required, then is the retain call above ignored automatically?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >