James S. Miller and Guillermo J. Rozas. Garbage Collection is Fast, But a Stack is Faster. MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI memo 1462, March 1994. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Indolent Closure Creation - Strumpen (Correct)
....ubiquitous in modern compilers, and structured programming has prevailed. When garbage collection became popular, the well established stack abstraction has been questioned by Appel in an article [2] entitled Garbage Collection Can Be Fater Than Stack Allocation. In response, Miller and Rozas [10] claimed that Garbage Collection is Fast, But a Stack is Faster. This manuscript is an extended version of a talk entitled Indolent Closure Creation , which I gave at the Yale Multithreaded Programming Workshop in New Haven, June 8 9, 1998. Implementing multithreading in an efficient ....
James S. Miller and Guillermo J. Rozas. Garbage Collection is Fast, But a Stack is Faster. MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI memo 1462, March 1994.
Portable High-Performance Programs - Frigo (1992) (1 citation) (Correct)
....can potentially waste more memory than stack allocation due to fragmentation. For a careful analysis of the relative merits of stack and heap based allocation that supports heap allocation, see the paper by Appel and Shao [13] For an equally careful analysis that supports stack allocation, see [110]. Thus, although the work first principle gives a general understanding of where overheads should be borne, our experience with Cilk 4 showed that large enough critical path overheads can tip the scales to the point where the assumptions underlying the principle no longer hold. We believe that ....
J. S. MILLER AND G. J. ROZAS, Garbage collection is fast, but a stack is faster, Tech. Rep. Memo 1462, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, 1994.
Portable High-Performance Programs - Frigo (1999) (1 citation) (Correct)
....can potentially waste more memory than stack allocation due to fragmentation. For a careful analysis of the relative merits of stack and heap based allocation that supports heap allocation, see the paper by Appel and Shao [13] For an equally careful analysis that supports stack allocation, see [110]. Thus, although the work first principle gives a general understanding of where overheads should be borne, our experience with Cilk 4 showed that large enough critical path overheads can tip the scales to the point where the assumptions underlying the principle no longer hold. We believe that ....
J. S. MILLER AND G. J. ROZAS, Garbage collection is fast, but a stack is faster, Tech. Rep. Memo 1462, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, 1994.
The Need for Predictable Garbage Collection - Reid, McCorquodale, Baker.. (1999) (3 citations) (Correct)
....would cause a problem for the garbage collector, since it would dereference a dangling pointer. We are considering two possible solutions: we could use reachability to decide where to allocate objects; or we could generate code to null out dangling pointers. 6 Conclusions Many researchers [2, 14] have argued about the performance tradeoffs between using the heap and using the stack. Jones and Muchnick [13] were among the first authors to examine the language and performance implications of stack vs. heap allocation. Other authors have shown how hybrid heap stack strategies for allocating ....
J. S. Miller and G. J. Rozas. Garbage collection is fast, but a stack is faster. A.I. Memo 1462, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, Mar. 1994.
Cilk: Efficient Multithreaded Computing - Randall (1998) (3 citations) (Correct)
....can potentially waste more memory than stack allocation due to fragmentation. For a careful analysis of the relative merits of stack and heap based allocation that supports heap allocation, see the paper by Appel and Shao [3] For an equally careful analysis that supports stack allocation, see [73]. Thus, although the work first principle gives a general understanding of where overheads should be borne, our experience with Cilk 4 showed that large enough critical path overheads can tip the scales to the point where the assumptions underlying the principle no longer hold. We believe that ....
James S. Miller and Guillermo J. Rozas. Garbage collection is fast, but a stack is faster. Technical Report Memo 1462, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, 1994.
The Implementation of the Cilk-5 Multithreaded Language - Frigo, Leiserson, Randall (1998) (70 citations) (Correct)
....can potentially waste more memory than stack allocation due to fragmentation. For a careful analysis of the relative merits of stack and heap based allocation that supports heap allocation, see the paper by Appel and Shao [1] For an equally careful analysis that supports stack allocation, see [22]. Thus, although the work first principle gives a general understanding of where overheads should be borne, our experience with Cilk 4 showed that large enough critical path overheads can tip the scales to the point where the assumptions underlying the principle no longer hold. We believe that ....
James S. Miller and Guillermo J. Rozas. Garbage collection is fast, but a stack is faster. Technical Report Memo 1462, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, 1994.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC