Re: Alternative Hashtbl and lwt yield-like functionality questions

[Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 19 Dec 2011, at 13:05, Haris Rotsos wrote:

> I am comparing against a similar implementation of the code that uses
> the boost hashtbl. While the test runs, the c++ code create a very
> small footprint, while the ocaml code starts bloating. As an example
> for the previous experiment a mirage vm will run out of memory after
> 20 seconds of insertion, while the c++ code will consume only a few
> megs. I guess this is the cost you pay when you want automatic memory
> management.


We should never actually *run out* of memory in the GC case; it should trigger 
a collection and continue (albeit a bit more slowly). However, if you are 
actually holding references to the intermediate values then it will indeed run 
out of memory... as would Boost.

Anil