SEO

I think this is a critical piece of software because it is used by a
lot of applications and programming language runtimes.

Unfortunately only the most primitive mode is supported (single
threaded application - without any incremental) tuning.

I was really surprised about this fact. I don't have the time and do
not know anything about the OpenBSD memory system internals to do it.
So i would like to see somebody volunteer on this task. There might
also some kernel patching required as incremental garbage collecting
does only work well with some more information about the dirty pages.
WindowsXP offers an excellent "GetWriteWatch" feature to do this,
there is AFAIK nothing like it in the BSD world.

On 27 Feb., 11:06, llothar <llot...@web.de> wrote:
> I think this is a critical piece of software because it is used by a
> lot of applications and programming language runtimes.

So nobody else who want use gcj or bigloo applications on OpenBSD?
Well lets install FreeBSD then.

llothar <llothar@web.de> wrote:
> On 27 Feb., 11:06, llothar <llot...@web.de> wrote:
>> I think this is a critical piece of software because it is used by a
>> lot of applications and programming language runtimes.
>
> So nobody else who want use gcj or bigloo applications on OpenBSD?
> Well lets install FreeBSD then.

No more "FreeBSD install sucks a lot"?!

--
No Swen today, my love has gone away
My mailbox stands for lorn, a symbol of the dawn

llothar wrote:
> I think this is a critical piece of software because it is used by a
> lot of applications and programming language runtimes.
>
Never heard of it.

> Unfortunately only the most primitive mode is supported (single
> threaded application - without any incremental) tuning.
>
Good, fast or cheap. Choose any two. OpenBSD has less of a focus on
cranking performance or maximizing userland thread/process parallelism.

> I was really surprised about this fact. I don't have the time and do
> not know anything about the OpenBSD memory system internals to do it.
> So i would like to see somebody volunteer on this task. There might
> also some kernel patching required as incremental garbage collecting
> does only work well with some more information about the dirty pages.
> WindowsXP offers an excellent "GetWriteWatch" feature to do this,
> there is AFAIK nothing like it in the BSD world.

Traditionally, if you want a port that badly you roll it up yourself.
Did you try to build whatever it is you need?

--
clvrmnky <mailto:spamtrap@clevermonkey.org>

Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted. Replace "spamtrap"
with my name to contact me directly.

On 2 Mrz., 19:47, "Helmut Schneider" <jumpe...@gmx.de> wrote:

>
> No more "FreeBSD install sucks a lot"?!
>

Thanks, yes it still sucks. So whats you opinion about this topics.
The BSD's suck in many many many ways. I'm working with all 8 of them
(Net,Free,Open,Mac in 2 architectures). I think i really know about
what i
say.

> Never heard of it.

Sorry for the hard and honest words: Sucker. Really i mean it. Someone
who never heared
about Boehm-Weisser-GC simply does not know anything serious about
programming.

It's like talking about politics and never heared about Napoleon.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 22:07:19 -0800 (PST), llothar wrote:

> So nobody else who want use gcj or bigloo applications on OpenBSD?
> Well lets install FreeBSD then.

Seeing you not getting what you want gives me pleasure. Thank you!

Daniel

In article <a5f9c604-8dab-4d61-b7aa-2d6b2587fc9f@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
llothar <llothar@web.de> wrote:
>I think this is a critical piece of software because it is used by a
>lot of applications and programming language runtimes.
>
>Unfortunately only the most primitive mode is supported (single
>threaded application - without any incremental) tuning.

Cool, go ahead and port what's missing.

>I was really surprised about this fact. I don't have the time and do
>not know anything about the OpenBSD memory system internals to do it.
>So i would like to see somebody volunteer on this task.

And I would like $10 000, and ten sex bunnies.
I'm about as likely to get them.


>There might also some kernel patching required as incremental garbage
>collecting does only work well with some more information about the
>dirty pages. WindowsXP offers an excellent "GetWriteWatch" feature to
>do this, there is AFAIK nothing like it in the BSD world.

A few important hints.

- OpenBSD runs on a large variety of architectures.
- garbage collection is tough, especially in the presence of dynamic
loading, which is already a bitch to make it run.
- boehm-gc is not the best behaved piece of software. In fact, some parts
are about as readable as gcc + gdb combined. Especially the arch-dependent
maze.

So there you have it. Some talented people have looked at the issue. And
have spent the time to DO THE HOMEWORK to figure out why this is tough.

You haven't.

TANSTAAFL

"Marc Espie" <espie@lain.home> wrote in message
news:fqrj8l$2fpf$1@biggoron.nerim.net...
>
> And I would like $10 000, and ten sex bunnies.

Perhaps we could start a fund to provide the sex bunnies?

Steve
--
http://www.fivetrees.com

On 7 Mrz., 21:25, es...@lain.home (Marc Espie) wrote:

> Cool, go ahead and port what's missing.

I don't have time for this as i don't see OpenBSD as an important os.
But i would port my software if the fundamental framework is
available.
It's first of all a BSD/posix/X11 system.

> - OpenBSD runs on a large variety of architectures.
Honestly i don't give a shit about this argument any more. Thats
important
for the kernel but not for ports packages. If it runs on Intel it's
good enough.
Don't make the stupid decision to restrict the 99% of the uses by the
maybe one thousand guys that decided themself to run it on systems
where
they know that they can't expect anything working.

> - garbage collection is tough, especially in the presence of dynamic
> loading, which is already a bitch to make it run.

No it is not. Boehm is using a very simple mode of world stop and run.
This
is good enough for many cases. Incremental mode is not disabled by
default
on many (any?) system.

> - boehm-gc is not the best behaved piece of software. In fact, some parts
> are about as readable as gcc + gdb combined. Especially the arch-dependent
> maze.
Yes you need some time to get into it. There are a lot of preprocessor
combinations
but they are not so hard to read. The real code is maybe only 2000
lines.

> So there you have it. Some talented people have looked at the issue. And
> have spent the time to DO THE HOMEWORK to figure out why this is tough.

Doubt really this. Either they are not talented or did not spend time
or both.
I read the mailing for 6 years made a handfull bugfixes in the inner
core. I have not
seen any OpenBSD related message for years.

It runs on NetBSD, FreeBSD and MacOSX (okay thats not what i would
really
call a good BSD) so it shouldn't be that hard to run on OpenBSD. But
it seems that
threading is still for some reasons not important for the OpenBSD
community.