Yes I mean reachable from a root. <snip>If it was able to determine whether objects were reachable without performing a GC, it wouldn't need to do most of the work involved in performing a GC!</snip>
Interesting. I thought that the graph calculation was comparatively less expensive than compacting the memory. <snip>Why do you need to know this?</snip> I cannot determine the lifetime of the objects I am caching (otherwise I would make them disposable). Many different objects may have picked up references to them. The cache will periodically be passed an object that is a different instance, but has the same logical identity as an object already in the cache. If the cached object is reachable from a root and it is dirty, then the incoming object is discarded. However, if the cached object is not reachable from a root, then the incoming object should replace it. -----Original Message----- From: Griffiths, Ian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 7:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do you mean by 'rooted'? Do you mean that it's reachable from a root? If so, the problem is that the CLR never knows whether a particular object is reachable except on the occasions when it performs a GC. If it was able to determine whether objects were reachable without performing a GC, it wouldn't need to do most of the work involved in performing a GC! Why do you need to know this? -- Ian Griffiths DevelopMentor > -----Original Message----- > From: Pinto, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I've got a cache that needs to know that a weakreference's target is > rooted. > What is the best way to do this? > > The cache is accessed ~20 times/second in a server environment, and once > per > minute in a rich client environment. > > Calling GC.Collect would solve my logical problem, but I can't imagine > that it would be very performant on the server. > > Are there other options I can use? Would the profiler APIs help
