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=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFD2BBAF for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:18:02 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqECAD+K4EnOviX0mWdsb2JhbACNJIkRAQEBAQEICwoHEaImgQmPIAEEAgGDeQY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,172,1238968800"; d="scan'208";a="24422610" Received: from web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.244]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 11 Apr 2009 21:17:59 +0200 Received: (qmail 21535 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Apr 2009 19:17:58 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1239477478; bh=EtFLx0pTQxtL/CS1mPI3XDqaGipMRx6a5Ar/EE/iw9A=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=wjizpHb2hdeiP5Nw/0T6RKQW5ddCFbCNb+5rNR10FNHOGurUxC63RHYlShJATGhpAW4uHwVyUrztP0V0pBls7xFZoVtSA7zNu/X9vZDU5XgCpPR1/oPaqqT7DKQv4IBubFxK+T+hiGqCPwxgX3x9s/g0qs9vvCpngYgJ4a74UFo= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dl0/z28s2J9sWwOycyCIwXIPR1yBh1aJZAYBM61fpTvWgHeGV9pTxgUjkgQ9++UE1vm41sZeqbzis2zHcOPuadvyZhqZ+Y9M9srhE9/UURHI4K7laAx6q+Na1ooSc+gUeCJvwWD4XjylWh41jD/LMxReAgfWED63MJYco0pRSN4=; Message-ID: <321060.19886.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: QvvKK1cVM1kTojQ0zyAiPkt7kbIzOn4jcNjXCeuLtDzR_4ZuCsk5XOnVrGcF6i8WDbiSYzO20eCKKxPx6CVNcPkFgAEAcMyQ3ftUJ3IDfkpxMndq_qWn5x0kr_6Di1hKm0VY3P2pIMcaIDloXbOmIN56kuZMPb7f_IU5od4h2SMKu5shw0TYRkmLl4dgCRm7rx9ZnjnlwMgUfVOTA3vuU9nVkCGe62YVEQDMJgAWP7wYSw.Z0IcOP8YNu.TR9QVEpo6KLhcof6BqtMuTmSVOVRvLKFwtQ3awk_5nT615DoR0YuOybXOPOMIq3V2MQjf7mvPGA1qZc44UbA-- Received: from [129.44.184.5] by web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:17:58 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.1 Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:17:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Ed Keith Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml and Boehm To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 boehm:01 ocaml:01 boehm:01 incorrectly:01 pointers:01 pointers:01 blog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 deallocate:03 inria:06 elaborate:07 i'm:09 --- On Sat, 4/11/09, Jon Harrop wrote: > From: Jon Harrop > Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml and Boehm > To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr > Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009, 10:27 AM > > Also, don't forget that many people incorrectly claim that smart pointers > deallocate at the earliest possible point when, in fact, they typically keep > values alive longer than necessary. Could elaborate on this? I'm having a hard time envisioning a situation where GC could free memory that smart pointers would not free. -EdK Ed Keith e_d_k@yahoo.com Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com