From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <goswin-v-b@web.de>
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94569BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:43:05 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuoCAMQj7UzZSMDjgmdsb2JhbACjCRUBAQsLCAcTAx++MIVHBI1vgnA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,250,1288566000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="80153190"
Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 23:43:05 +0100
Received:  from smtp06.web.de  ( [172.20.5.172])
	by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5582187750D1;
	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:40:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [78.43.204.177] (helo=frosties.localdomain)
	by smtp06.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(WEB.DE 4.110 #24)
	id 1PLO0R-0001vx-00; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:40:03 +0100
Received: from mrvn by frosties.localdomain with local (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <goswin-v-b@web.de>)
	id 1PLO0R-0005Vs-2o; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:40:03 +0100
From: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
To: Edwin <edwintorok@gmail.com>
Cc: "Kecheng" <kecheng@cecs.pdx.edu>,
	caml-list <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml memory leak issue
In-Reply-To: <20101124093035.473bd2e5@deb0> ("Edwin"'s message of
	"Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:30:35 +0200")
References: <201011231954241577004@cecs.pdx.edu>
	<20101124093035.473bd2e5@deb0>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux, no MULE)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:40:03 +0100
Message-ID: <87lj4ipcqk.fsf@frosties.localnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: goswin-v-b@web.de
X-Sender: goswin-v-b@web.de
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18v7ysbPodXl9BuyFfIhsEwP39OMjXq1ihtg1Dk
	78aSIDFYzoDOu+SuLyA/mBCguhtCVXw4PvUSWm83c1z0Ugi9gy
	d4DTJK3cc=
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 byte:01 printf:01 tokens:01 edwin:98 mfg:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 explicitly:02 let:03 let:03 exit:04 exit:04 

Török Edwin <edwintorok@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:54:24 -0800
> "Kecheng" <kecheng@cecs.pdx.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I used valgrind to check the memory usage of my OCaml byte code, but
>> I found that a memory leak. I'm very confused what the problem is. I
>> tried a very simple code as following, and compileed it. 
>> 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> let test  = 
>>     let a = 1 in
>>     let b = a + 5 in
>>     printf "%d\n" b;
>> ;;
>> test;;
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I think you need to call the GC on exit explicitly, its not done by
> default.
>
> Best regards,
> --Edwin

Correct. Ocaml assumes (or knows which OS does) the OS will free all
resource at exit anyway. No point wasting valuable time doing a GC
sweep.

In case of custom blocks and finalize function I believe this to be an
error. Managing resources that the OS does not free (IPC tokens,
tempfiles, ...) is made much harder due to this.

MfG
        Goswin