At Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:48:40 -0400, George Neuner wrote:
>
> On 10/2/2017 2:52 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > Meanwhile, there's no similar way to order
> > callbacks that are registered with a custodian.
>
> IIRC, the JVM executes finalizers in reverse order of registration -
> expecting that, in
Hi Eric,
On 10/2/2017 9:40 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
George: I don't see that invariant for java in anything that I search
for on Java finalizers. Do you have a reference? In particular java
only has one finalizer per object (the finalize method) and across
objects the references I found seem to
George: I don't see that invariant for java in anything that I search for
on Java finalizers. Do you have a reference? In particular java only has
one finalizer per object (the finalize method) and across objects the
references I found seem to imply that there is no guaranteed order?
https://en.wi
On 10/2/2017 2:52 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
If we change `ffi/unsafe/alloc` so that a custodian shutdown runs all
deallocators, that would work in many cases. It would create a problem,
however, if there are objects to deallocate where the deallocation
function references other objects that thems
At Sat, 30 Sep 2017 09:45:02 -0700, Eric Dobson wrote:
> I'm trying to write some racket code which interfaces with a foreign
> library and provides a safe interface. Some of the functions I'm calling
> allocate memory and need to have this explicitly freed by the caller. The
> 'allocator' binding
I'm trying to write some racket code which interfaces with a foreign
library and provides a safe interface. Some of the functions I'm calling
allocate memory and need to have this explicitly freed by the caller. The
'allocator' binding from ffi/unsafe/alloc seems to solve this problem, but
I'm runn
6 matches
Mail list logo
