I was under the impression that foreign pointers finalizers were only ordered with respect to multiple finalizers on a single object. So if you can show your implementation preserves same-object ordering, that should be sufficient. (Nota bene: I haven't CR'd your code.)
Edward Excerpts from Akio Takano's message of Mon Mar 11 03:17:48 -0700 2013: > Hi, > > I'm working on implementing per-generation lists of weak pointers to > speed up garbage collection in programs that allocate a lot of weak > pointers. I have a patch [1] that validates and gives a 3x speed up on > a benchmark. However I'd like to ask for some advise before finishing > and submitting the patch. > > [1] > https://github.com/takano-akio/ghc/commit/c7345c68eaa1e7f9572e693b5e352e386df7d680 > > The problem is that since my patch splits the weak pointer list > between generations, it no longer maintains the right order of weak > pointers. This could cause finalizers added with > addForeignPtrFinalizer to run in the wrong order. > > I can think of one way to fix it; to make sure that when a WEAK object > gets promoted, it is always added to the front of the new list. So my > questions are: > > - Would it be a correct fix? > - If so, is it an acceptable fix? For example, is it too fragile a > reasoning to rely on? > > Thank you in advance, > > Takano Akio > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
