I wouldn't call this a memory leak: vectors have a bigger memory overhead than before (additional PersistentVector$Node and AtomicReference).
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Andy Fingerhut < andy_finger...@alum.wustl.edu> wrote: > When I did this, one of the first several lines of output included a > little more than 1 AtomicReference object per calls to vec. > > num #instances #bytes class name > ---------------------------------------------- > 6: 500022 12000528 > java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference > > Would it be correct to nullify the reference to the persistent object > returned by a call to persistent! on a transient object? For a single persistent object (built with transients) there are potentially several references to the same AtomicReference. I think that you can't nullify all references and have persistent! still be O(1). One AtomicRefrence is created for each pair of transient/persistent! calls and, in worst case, you can't have more than one AtomicReference per PersistentVector$Node. So, for a given vector it won't grow indefinitely. OTH, Christophe --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
