#7670: StablePtrs should be organized by generation for efficient minor collections -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: ezyang | Owner: (none) Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Runtime System | Version: 7.7 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s): Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by simonmar): I didn't mention per-capability hash tables, only per-generation. per- capability might be worthwhile to avoid locking overhead, but my nagging concern about all this is that I'm not sure what we're optimising for. Are there any heavy users of StableNames that would benefit from optimisation here, or are people avoiding StableNames because they aren't efficient enough? Or is the main concern implementation complexity? Adding per- generation tables would increase complexity, it's not clear to me that going to per-generation hash tables would result in a simpler implementation, even if the no-stable-table idea was implemented too. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7670#comment:20 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler