Fil's Unbelievable Garbage Collector

Hmm, Fil-C seems potentially really important; there's a lot of software that only exists in the form of C code which it's important to preserve access to, even if the tradeoffs made by conventional C compilers (accepting large risks of security problems in exchange for a small improvement in single-core performance) have largely become obsolete.

The list of supported software is astounding: CPython, SQLite, OpenSSH, ICU, CMake, Perl5, and Bash, for example. There are a lot of things in that list that nobody is likely to ever rewrite in Rust.

I wonder if it's feasible to use Fil-C to do multitasking between mutually untrusted processes on a computer without an MMU? They're making all the right noises about capability security and nonblocking synchronization and whatnot.

Does anyone have experience using it in practice? I see that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45134852 reports a 4× slowdown or better.

The name is hilarious. Feelthay! Feelthay!

> I wonder if it's feasible to use Fil-C to do multitasking between mutually untrusted processes on a computer without an MMU?

You could. That said, FUGC’s guts rely on OS features that in turn rely on an MMU.

But you could make a version of FUGC that has no such dependency.

As for perf - 4x is the worst case and that number is out there because I reported it. And I report worst case perf because that’s how obsessive I am about realistically measuring, and then fanatically resolving, perf issues

Fact is, I can live on the Fil-C versions of a lot of my favorite software and not tell the difference

When you run the Fil-C versions of your favourite software, does it have a sanitizer mode that reports bugs like missing free() etc? And have you found any bugs this way?

Well missing free is just swallowed by the GC - the leak gets fixed without any message.

I have found bugs in the software that I’ve ported, yeah.

To add on top of this: This is a tracing GC. It only ever visits the live data, not the dead data. In other words, it would need a lot more special support if it wanted to report the dead objects.

Really? How does a non-moving GC make dead objects available for reallocation without visiting them?

Why would it need to visit them? It just marks the address ranges as available in its internal bookkeeping (bitmaps etc).

In the general case there are as many newly available address ranges as dead objects, so that counts as visiting them in this context.

I don't think that's a definition of 'visit' most people would agree with.

I'm actually working on my own language that has a non-moving GC. It uses size classes (so 16 byte objects, 32 byte objects etc.), each of which is allocated in a continous slab of memory. Occupancy is determined by a bitmap, 1 bit for each slot in the slab.

The GC constructs a liveness bitmap for the size class, and the results are ANDed together, 'freeing' the memory. If you fill the slab with dead objects, then run the GC, it will not walk anywhere on this slab, create an all zero liveness bitmap, and free the memory.

That's an awesome project! Is your GC generational despite being non-moving? What are your main objectives for the project?

The liveness bitmap approach is pretty widespread at this point; jemalloc works the same way IIRC.

Still, I think that counts as "visiting" in the context of this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45137139