Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 9
    Between utility libraries and JIT compiling, the lines between "compiled to native" and "runs in a runtime environment" are becoming more and more blurred. Commented Jun 15, 2017 at 2:15
  • 6
    Just to add a bit about languages that don't come with GC support: It's true that C and other such languages don't provide information about call stacks, but if you're OK with some platform-specific code (usually including a bit of assembly code) it's still possible to implement "conservative garbage collection". The Boehm GC is an example of this used in real life programs. Commented Jun 15, 2017 at 12:24
  • 2
    @corsiKa Or rather, the line is much more distinct. Now we see that those are different unrelated concepts, and not antonyms of eachother. Commented Jun 16, 2017 at 9:54
  • 4
    One additional complexity that you need to be aware of in compiled vs interpreted runtimes relates to this sentence in your answer: "(Tracing) garbage collection usually starts by walking the call stacks of all threads that are currently running." My experience of implementing GC in a compiled environment is that tracing the stacks is not enough. The starting point is usually suspending the threads for long enough to trace from their registers, because they may have references in those registers that haven't yet been stored in the stack. For an interpreter, this isn't usually ... Commented Jun 16, 2017 at 10:49
  • ... a problem, because the environment can arrange for GC to take place at "safe points" where the interpreter knows that all data is safely stored in the interpreted stacks. Commented Jun 16, 2017 at 10:51