Re: Eager garbage collection

[Andrea Corallo]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org>
>> Cc: sbaugh@catern.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:26:21 +0000
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > The devil, as usually, is in the details.  What is radically different
>> > between the two is the value of X1.  In the gcmh.el case, the value of
>> > X1 is alarmingly large, something I keep warning people against for a
>> > long time.  I don't want us to adopt such dangerous practices.  And
>> > using that large value is central to the idea of gcmh.el, so if we
>> > lower it significantly, I wouldn't expect it to provide significant
>> > benefits.
>> 
>> I see, I was discussing the implementations rather than the defaults.
>> Indeed these are easy to change to what we think is suitable for going
>> into master.
>
> Once again, I think the central idea of that package is that the GC
> threshold is raised to a dangerously high level while commands run.
> If you lower that high threshold, the whole concept of the package
> will collapse, and the effect will be much smaller than the author
> intended.
>
> So it isn't just a matter of changing the defaults.

I was dicussing gcmh implementation as an option to be included in place
of the one proposed by Spencer, not the defaults that I've *not*
suggested for inclusion.

That said as the consensus goes for Spencer's implementation I believe
these are outdated details.

  Andrea