From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lukstafi@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,
	SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9029FBBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:40:12 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjECAGNI4EnRVdq0kGdsb2JhbACVdj8BAQEBCQkMBxEDojuBCY8tAQMBA4N5Bg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,171,1238968800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="38313547"
Received: from mail-bw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.218.180])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2009 16:40:12 +0200
Received: by bwz28 with SMTP id 28so1720266bwz.27
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=DiKCIpacAqQYNL/jJArS8dVa9Ylxbqn5xE+yWh0mO58=;
        b=FSPbGyoX2DrH2qn30weRCE89fN/INANkvWlXJ61/lJzhfbO9HOu318DnyQ3tkqFzPS
         QM9uWzpyKEtDmwsmp6/UTyM63BtUnLqnLj70M8mJ7HFy9n0wEWcwvDe7BE91m1kXTA2v
         QIvLe5752Tj4vGoHJdkLQAOlE3/ly3O97wg84=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=d09c5ZgesNb7vDxyxYu59msF+K7x9EKnhInE60AI/vh1xZnsPxNPCS+WLyQKdJ7gG6
         SEaoTPEhFdCapl8Amy54uKj2OQmHlIes+kv5F2QnGQrbu1XdafEYqvScf0IhacmLRT6b
         Ho7TbZE4QyYt0MtjlpwIcKoCKPp+SO1oNQrGY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.108.196 with SMTP id g4mr1304600fap.36.1239460811691; Sat, 
	11 Apr 2009 07:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <200904111527.58652.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
References: <4a708d20904101313s49ef3b75m45202b6bda800b77@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49E09C2D.4080906@starynkevitch.net>
	 <4a708d20904110711i199ef805h611a04d823c8fb51@mail.gmail.com>
	 <200904111527.58652.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:40:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4a708d20904110740r17d2d51ax102d0995dafc379d@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml and Boehm
From: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gmail.com>
To: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 boehm:01 lukasz:01 lukasz:01 pointers:01 2009:98 2009:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 off-topic:02 ptr:02 depends:04 weak:06 question:13 smart:15 

2009/4/11 Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>:
> 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.