as to guarantee that it won't do nasty
things. Or maybe even get rid of the finalizer argument in mkWeak#,
since they are not guaranteed to run anyway.
Regards,
Paul Liu
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:54 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 03/04/2012 21:40, Paul Liu wrote:
>>
>> It seems to vi
It seems to violate the claim that "all finalizers are run exactly
once" mentioned in the weak pointer paper. Is there any reason not to
enforce this?
--
Regards,
Paul Liu
___
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.o
Thanks for the hints! I double checked, and found that it was actually
using an older copy, that happens to have a different numbering in
variable names that creates a mismatch.
Regards,
Paul Liu
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 22/02/2012 19:43, Paul Liu wr
ed and unboxed
type? I'd imagine this is only safe when it's strict, but any implicit
cast undocumented is bad. Besides, Ptr is not a strict datatype
either. So under what occasions does GHC generate code like this?
Any help is greatly appreciated
memo table where both keys
and values are weak pointers? Sure, it doesn't have the nice property
that keys keep values alive, but I wonder how much difference it would
be in practice.
Regards,
Paul Liu
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> | I'm just trying t
nderstand the design rationale behind GHC's weak
references. Any help is greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Regards,
Paul Liu
___
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
aToTag
Any hints will be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot!
--
Regards,
Paul Liu
___
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc