Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:56:25PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
generational GC (at least one used in GHC) is better suited for
functional (immutable) data. this conception by itself based on that
new allocated data can contain references to old ones but not vice
versa.
Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Ravi Nanavati wrote:
2. If there is a known fix for this issue, what would it involve
(and, if there are any guesses, how much work might it be)?
I had thought this was on the list of things fixed in 6.4. Simon?
Fixed in 6.6, yes.
Hello Ravi,
Wednesday, April 19, 2006, 12:05:28 AM, you wrote:
1. What goes wrong with mutable data and generational garbage
collection to make this sort of workaround necessary?
generational GC (at least one used in GHC) is better suited for
functional (immutable) data. this conception by
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:56:25PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
generational GC (at least one used in GHC) is better suited for
functional (immutable) data. this conception by itself based on that
new allocated data can contain references to old ones but not vice
versa. minor GC algorithms
I recently discovered that I'm running into the IORef / garbage
collection issue described in the ghc user guide (at the bottom of the
following page):
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.4/html/users_guide/faster.html
Increasing the heap and allocation area size (with -H, -M and -A) helped
On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Ravi Nanavati wrote:
I recently discovered that I'm running into the IORef / garbage
collection issue described in the ghc user guide (at the bottom of the
following page):
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.4/html/users_guide/faster.html
I did a bit of
