From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p0QDDg2W032522 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:13:42 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,380,1291590000"; d="scan'208";a="96795548" Received: from wifi-auth-190072.inria.fr ([128.93.190.72]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 Jan 2011 14:13:38 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: Damien Doligez In-Reply-To: <4D3DF1F0.2080008@univ-savoie.fr> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:13:38 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <4D3B05E6.3090103@univ-savoie.fr> <5E60A32A-4DAB-4870-AD8F-20080071B81B@inria.fr> <4D3DF1F0.2080008@univ-savoie.fr> To: caml users X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Weak array semantics with mutually recursive values. On 2011-01-24, at 22:41, Christophe Raffalli wrote: > t and u are two inaccessible mutually recursive values, but one is still > in the minor heap (t) while the other (u) has been promoted (if a minor > cycle just ended between the allocation of both values, this seems > possible even if unlikely). In this case, the finalisation of t and its > removal from a weak array might occur long before the finalisation of u ? That's correct. -- Damien