From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p0OCjVmg010730 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:45:31 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,370,1291590000"; d="scan'208";a="96328128" Received: from macadam.inria.fr ([128.93.8.130]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 24 Jan 2011 13:45:26 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: Damien Doligez In-Reply-To: <4D3B05E6.3090103@univ-savoie.fr> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:45:26 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <5E60A32A-4DAB-4870-AD8F-20080071B81B@inria.fr> References: <4D3B05E6.3090103@univ-savoie.fr> To: OCaml X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Weak array semantics with mutually recursive values. On 2011-01-22, at 17:29, Christophe Raffalli wrote: > 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. As far as I can tell, it should never happen. Do you have a good repro case? -- Damien