From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81970BBAF for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:34:13 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AssAAB+b4EnUnwdkjWdsb2JhbACCIZQTAQEBAQkJCgkPBrJAg3wG X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,173,1238968800"; d="scan'208";a="26092696" Received: from relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net ([212.159.7.100]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 11 Apr 2009 22:34:13 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuwEAB+b4EnUnw4S/2dsb2JhbACCIccRg3wG Received: from pih-relay05.plus.net ([212.159.14.18]) by relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2009 21:34:12 +0100 Received: from [87.113.30.188] (helo=leper.local) by pih-relay05.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Lsju0-00022n-De for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:34:12 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml and Boehm Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:40:46 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <4a708d20904101313s49ef3b75m45202b6bda800b77@mail.gmail.com> <200904111527.58652.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <4a708d20904110740r17d2d51ax102d0995dafc379d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4a708d20904110740r17d2d51ax102d0995dafc379d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904112140.46663.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: bc684ff9563af208916744f095fe79f4 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 boehm:01 lukasz:01 lukasz:01 pointers:01 pointers:01 ocaml's:01 vastly:01 vastly:01 basile:01 deallocation:01 2009:98 2009:98 frog:98 wrote:01 On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:40:11 Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: > 2009/4/11 Jon Harrop : > > On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:11:38 Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: > >> (Another question which is off-topic for this list is whether smart > >> pointers in their situation would be a high performance hit.) > > > > Depends what "their situation" is. :-) > > General performance is very important for them... They plan to use > weak_ptr most of the time. Ok. My advice is to avoid shared pointers if at all possible and rely on a robust GC implementation like OCaml's. GC is vastly more efficient and vastly less error prone. I concur with Basile that a loose binding is preferable to a tight binding when you have more than one form of deallocation. Message passing is generally the easiest solution. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e