From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p0MGTer1031272
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:29:40 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtQAACKUOk1KfVI0kGdsb2JhbACkZggVAQECCQkMBxEEIKNXiXuCF4QwLohYAQEDBYVLBI8x
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,363,1291590000"; 
   d="asc'?scan'208";a="87719620"
Received: from mail-ww0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 22 Jan 2011 17:29:35 +0100
Received: by wwd20 with SMTP id 20so2892821wwd.9
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:29:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
         :subject:x-enigmail-version:content-type;
        bh=ZKtGP99qc4yyQiX/ZSwSvq/pa0gUNNVs7ZOj5L4XIfY=;
        b=UCZ83fYbN3H1w9EIL2chKrdxK0XHnCpZS3IifvmZmSRthapl47tIT+3IqvoelRzTNj
         RR+ga9CJWWH2lXQ1ln5PwxcEQTVWa+5C4BQh0Ag1ueqne9B7xchCdGvzEwX6IwM0zDjI
         6uPNbtAW2u32Q6tcPv7j/SnaAe7ag22ubMgHA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :x-enigmail-version:content-type;
        b=OPoUfSxPfrntHy7ede4st/6mUxLEOngFkr5tm819p4YdL+hi1ZOqFn3nXF6utfsOkr
         EQ/OY+H0h3XJxjBpYZM4vjRzwyaJ1Zk7MwxN3Zb2YMB5CrR5KsUpns/n2cRKsfAlzpKX
         q/O/JNB8SGJk2RClau2r545hS0zfNgPucFRdY=
Received: by 10.227.180.76 with SMTP id bt12mr2275999wbb.146.1295713775427;
        Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:29:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from macbookpro.local (bin73-1-78-240-16-62.fbx.proxad.net [78.240.16.62])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y29sm2682954wbd.4.2011.01.22.08.29.32
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:29:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D3B05E6.3090103@univ-savoie.fr>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:29:26 +0100
From: Christophe Raffalli <craff73@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; fr; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OCaml <caml-list@inria.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="------------enig37C0EB0B679064CDA347E5DD"
Subject: [Caml-list] Weak array semantics with mutually recursive values.

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig37C0EB0B679064CDA347E5DD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Hello,

Consider two mutually recursive values:

let rec x =3D (1,y) and y =3D (2,x)

for instance. They will become unreachable by the GC at the same cycle.
However,
if they are both added in a weak array, it seems that they may not be
removed at the same time from the array.

I have some code that seems to show that most of the time they are
removed at the same times, but very rarely this fails.

The description in weak.mli does not imply this, because it just says
"may be removed" and not "must be removed".

What do you think about this ?

Regards,
Christophe




--------------enig37C0EB0B679064CDA347E5DD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk07BeoACgkQi9jr/RgYAS4VgwCeMT7b7n8L3LvcTEsQpTlgwA11
kwUAnjci+qfgVYqI/+OXXHBKTJW2U+4b
=Fnpc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig37C0EB0B679064CDA347E5DD--