Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: "Charles Richmond" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Historical Implementations to Garbage Collectors Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 08:28:48 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 19 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <14-05-015@comp.compilers> References: <14-05-001@comp.compilers> Reply-To: "Charles Richmond" NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1399321080 94850 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (5 May 2014 20:18:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 20:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: GC, history Posted-Date: 05 May 2014 16:17:59 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1240 wrote in message news:14-05-001@comp.compilers... > I'm interested in studying historical implementations of garbage > collection in early programming languages (BASIC, Lisp, etc). I'm > especially interested in language/runtime interface descriptions. > Does anybody have references they can share? > > [My LISP 1.5 manual says they used a straightforward mark and sweep > GC. The only complication was that list storage cells had a free bit > they could use for marking, while cells used for strings didn't so > it was a separate area and they used a separate bitmap. I'm fairly > sure that early Dartmouth BASIC was all static allocated, no GC. -John] In the Microsoft BASIC used in the TRS-80, there is a bug in the string garbage collection. As far as I know, this was *never* corrected, but as the string space fills... the GC fails way too soon. This is sort of historic, as the TRS-80 was using MS BASIC in the early 1980's. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com