George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, if the nhc98 RTS can't work out a time when it will be possible to
> run the delayed finalizer, how in creation do you expect the Foogle
> finalizer or whatever Foogle GC process it invokes to do so?
Quite simply, no finaliser (whether in Foogle or Haskell) should
be capable of triggering a garbage collection within its call.
This condition is absolutely necessary to prevent a cascade effect
of cross-language garbage collections, where a finaliser in Haskell
could trigger a GC in Foogle which triggers another (nested) GC in
Haskell etc.
Thus, if Haskell.freeSomething calls Foogle.freeSomething, and
Foogle.freeSomething cannot cause a Foogle GC, then no Foogle
finalisers are run yet, and so Foogle *cannot* call the Haskell world
until the Haskell GC is complete. After that, it doesn't matter
when the Foogle finaliser decides to run.
Note that all of this assumes a sequential processing model, where
control is always with one of Foogle or Haskell, never both. The FFI
spec explicitly avoids introducing any requirement for concurrency,
since it aims to be a minimal extension to H'98.
Regards,
Malcolm
_______________________________________________
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
