[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: continuations and threads

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Blandy <jimb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> I understand what you're saying, but you haven't addressed my concern
>> (re-quoted above) at all.

Jim> I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

>> >> I *want* the C stack to be unwound, so that the Scheme
>> >> heap references in the C activation records get freed

Jim> Well... I *don't* want the C stack to be unwound --- yet.  :) That C
Jim> stack frame is still live, because S2 might yet return.  So its heap
Jim> references should not be freed.

Jim> The discipline I've described has more expressive power than the one
Jim> you described.  In order to provide that additional power, we have to
Jim> keep that C stack frame around longer, because we can't be sure yet
Jim> that we don't still need it.  It's still potentially relevant to the
Jim> computation, so we can't throw it away.

Sure, but I don't think SML/NJ actually *detects* that it's still
relevant.  (The GC could, I guess.)  This means that the retained C
frame may still keep data alive which is really dead.  This might
create a space leak.

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla