X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:07:35 +0100
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Perl bug?
Message-ID:	<20070128120735.GK27843@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20070122181727 DOT GC27843 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <1552 DOT 67 DOT 40 DOT 28 DOT 188 DOT 1169493973 DOT squirrel AT 67 DOT 40 DOT 28 DOT 188> <20070122202137 DOT GC20665 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <45B540FF DOT 6060101 AT x-ray DOT at> <20070123083753 DOT GE27843 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <45B62E0B DOT 4080500 AT sh DOT cvut DOT cz> <45BBCF84 DOT 7070409 AT x-ray DOT at>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<45BBCF84.7070409@x-ray.at>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Jan 27 23:17, Reini Urban wrote:
> Václav Haisman schrieb:
> >If I were you I would report it as a bug to their bug tracker.
> 
> It's no bug, it's a perl feature,

Uh, right, a *feature* ;)

>  and often defended.
> Even dll's are not unloaded.
> 
> If you want to free it, free it explicitly with "undef"
> or with lexicals ("my") go out of scope.
> 
> Same with PHP and python btw. Only GC languages like lisp, ml and its 
> derivates have a proper GC.
> The perl GC they are talking about only "garbage collects" cyclic 
> referenced objects on final destruction, to enable proper free() of 
> externals.

Thanks for the info.  It's interesting to know.  What I still don't get,
however, is the fact that the same statement does not waste memory on
the x86 Linux Perl 5.8.5, but does on the x86 Cygwin Perl 5.8.7 and the
x86_64 Linux 5.8.8.  So it has been introduced only in later versions?
And why is it defended?  It doesn't seem to make sense, rather on the
contrary.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -