From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0246CBC69 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 10:32:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.244]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4U8Wnfm022247 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 10:32:49 +0200 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c24so662172ana for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=e1m5UXYGoW5U2VlC+YiWQYqXeCvsvSsL7IgPx/0JMp1oMivN4WLw3+v+hY2q93PrB4VLSfIBvkDqKR8EbmG3G6ivJMB6zTwl+sBxw+2r0dOlob+cSkHD0obDBR7Huf0j5qSMpj8+zndoOaNy/Tn5HubTApnKkOhMfWDX5ORZAZE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UtfhoTTZy/SuXNB+KaMy66Wn4PyWm7L2PXtA9hXSpn9CN8zR33VF/GaHoiQ5A+BV+VEbpP8NxLiY2WJfO0CBWfC5UCaJBoc7CXsSv8JahAR/ZHzO9uO/HcwmUVz/+HE0lf9gI6MoQpZZQrhmeYO11x5b8FqaVANPnjIDGiJoKAE= Received: by 10.100.9.19 with SMTP id 19mr5775038ani.1180513968486; Wed, 30 May 2007 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.168.16 with HTTP; Wed, 30 May 2007 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6f9f8f4a0705300132l1bf8775dwedfceede50e34c54@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:32:48 +0200 From: "Loup Vaillant" To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Faking concurrency using Unix forks and pipes In-Reply-To: <6f9f8f4a0705300130h3a536fb4hc6792afd61ee943b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200705300442.59906.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20070530070229.GB334@first.in-berlin.de> <6f9f8f4a0705300034g37006497t55f30e8ca3f3f191@mail.gmail.com> <200705300902.06760.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20070530181300.d4179bca.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <6f9f8f4a0705300130h3a536fb4hc6792afd61ee943b@mail.gmail.com> X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 465D36B1.000 on concorde : j-chkmail score : X : 0/20 1 0.000 -> 1 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 465D36B1.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; forks:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 developement:01 unix:01 wrote:01 experimental:01 caml-list:01 data:02 concurrency:02 seems:03 concurrent:03 concurrent:03 passing:04 erik:04 2007/5/30, Erik de Castro Lopo : > Jon Harrop wrote: > > > I'm having a look at it now. I had thought that it was an experimental version > > of OCaml that with a concurrent GC but that seems to be completely wrong. > > > > Will OCaml have a concurrent GC in the future? > > How much does a concurrent GC actually buy in comparison to > multiple processes each with their own GC and a robust way > of passing data between processes? > As far as I know, the developement team had made it quite clear that there will be no concurent GC (not in the near future, at least). The main reason is performance loss. (Sorry for the double post)