Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: skaller <skaller@m...>
Subject: finalisation
I'm not sure if my previous email got through to this list,
so I'll address this issue again.

I've installed David's ocaml 2.999, which supports ocaml finalisation

The semantics provided offer a number of significant advances over other
finalisation technology, particularly the allowance of multiple
and the fact that finalisers can cause an object to become reachable --
without any problems. Contrast this to the mess Java made of

However, the code I have has a serious deficiency: there is no way
to control the _order_ in which finalisers are invoked, and in
the order implemented is 'first in, first finalised', which is usually
the _wrong_ order for me.

In Vyper, my ocaml based Python interpreter, I have now enabled
python __del__ methods, which are finalisers for python class instances.
CPython uses reference counting, and so it finalises an acyclic graph
of objects top down: first the finaliser (__del__ method) of the root
object is invoked, possibly causing some child object's ref counts
to go to zero, in which case they're finalised recursively, then the
attributes of the object are detached, causing all remaining child
reference count to be decremented, possibly going to zero (and invoking

This scheme has two advantages: finalisers are invoked as early as
possible, and always in the correct order, and it has a disadvantage,
that circular references leave garbage.

Using the new finalisation feature, synchronous finalisation
is lost, which is not really a problem, whereas garbage is correctly
collected, which is a distinct advantage.

However, the problem is that the finalisers are invoked
in an 'arbitrary' order, which happens to be the order of
object construction. This is no good at all. In a typical
scenario, child objects are created first, and passed as
arguments to the parent constructor. Finalising the child
objects first, before the parent, makes it impossible to
correctly execute the parent finaliser, since it assumes
the parent object maintains invariants, including the ability
to access fully constructed children.

When there is an acyclic graph of references, the parent MUST be
finalised before any children. If the order of finalisers
was first in, last finalised, then more code would work correctly
(almost nothing works correctly at the moment). However, this isn't
really an adequate solution either.

An algorithm which finds a garbage object on which no other garbage
objects depend (if any) can proceed to safely finalise that object.
By applying this algorithm repeatedly to all garbage objects, a correct
of finalisation is found for acyclic graphs of objects.

In principle, the garbage collector must already know how to do this,
although I do not know the details enough to know if there is a
way to reuse existing code to sequence finalisers correctly in this

This leaves the problem of cyclic references. In Python, this will
be a problem because where finalisation is important, the client must
already break any cycles manually: the only potential issue would be
if the code depended on a finaliser of an object in a cycle which is not
broken NOT being executed -- and ocaml actually invoked it.

However, to extend the available functionality, it would be useful
to be able to break cycles. Clearly, in a cycle, if there is only
one object with a finaliser, it can be invoked without a problem.
[Note it is important never to _collect_ any objects which a finaliser
_might_ refer to!]

This leaves the problem of a cycle with more than one finaliser.
In this case, for Python, there is no way to control the order
of finalisation (because it is never done). So it would probably
be reasonable to invoke the finalisers in an arbitrary order.
However, in the case of _other_ software, a different strategy might
be required (weak pointers? explicit declaration of a finalisation

I'd be very interested to see if it is possible to produce a
strategy which at least handles acyclic graphs, since this is necessary
my interpreter to operate correctly. I'd be even more interested
in any comments on how to handle cycles (I have no idea, really).

John (Max) Skaller,
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850