* [Caml-list] Mismatch between Gc.full_major() documentation and behaviour
@ 2013-12-11 11:46 Bertrand Jeannet
2013-12-11 13:01 ` Török Edwin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Bertrand Jeannet @ 2013-12-11 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
According to the documentation, the sequence
"Gc.major();Gc.full_major()" should be equivalent to "Gc.full_major()",
as Gc.full_major() is told to terminate the current major gc and perform
a complete new cycle.
In my case it is not the case: "Gc.major(); Gc.full_major()" performs
more calls to finalisation functions than "Gc.full_major()".
My context: I use a weak hashtables containing finalised value (with
Gc.finalise).
The documentation of Weak module specifies that the finalization
function is called after the weak hashtbl/array has been set to none.
Does someone know the explanation of this ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] Mismatch between Gc.full_major() documentation and behaviour
2013-12-11 11:46 [Caml-list] Mismatch between Gc.full_major() documentation and behaviour Bertrand Jeannet
@ 2013-12-11 13:01 ` Török Edwin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Török Edwin @ 2013-12-11 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
On 12/11/2013 01:46 PM, Bertrand Jeannet wrote:
> According to the documentation, the sequence
> "Gc.major();Gc.full_major()" should be equivalent to
> "Gc.full_major()", as Gc.full_major() is told to terminate the
> current major gc and perform a complete new cycle.
They both perform a minor GC cycle too.
So you run a minor cycle twice with 'Gc.major(); Gc.full_major()', but only one with 'Gc.full_major()'.
>
> In my case it is not the case: "Gc.major(); Gc.full_major()" performs
> more calls to finalisation functions than "Gc.full_major()".
>
> My context: I use a weak hashtables containing finalised value (with
> Gc.finalise).
>
> The documentation of Weak module specifies that the finalization
> function is called after the weak hashtbl/array has been set to
> none.
>
> Does someone know the explanation of this ?
You can run 'Gc.print_stat stderr' to check how many GC minor/major cycles are run in both cases. The number of minor cycles should be different.
Best regards,
--Edwin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-12-11 13:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-12-11 11:46 [Caml-list] Mismatch between Gc.full_major() documentation and behaviour Bertrand Jeannet
2013-12-11 13:01 ` Török Edwin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).