Mon, 29 Apr 2002 20:02:09 -0400
> Different (complementary) idea: how about having more generations,
> each being traversed less frequently than the previous one?
That's what I meant by "Adding more generations could have a similar good
effect". It's certainly worth considering.
> Maybe a (potentially) infinite number of generations? (Or at least a
> fixed limit that never gets reached in practice.) Wouldn't this have
> the same effect as increasing the threshold exponentially?
Yes, but it wouldn't get the effect of decreasing the threshold
exponentially when gc suddenly starts getting lots of trash back from the
oldest generation. Only adaptive schemes actually adapt <wink>.