Commit b44fd99f authored by Simon Marlow's avatar Simon Marlow
Browse files

fix an assertion failure, and possibly some bogosity (see comment)

parent c08bd100
......@@ -1754,6 +1754,7 @@ retainRoot(void *user STG_UNUSED, StgClosure **tl)
currentStackBoundary = stackTop;
if (c != &stg_END_TSO_QUEUE_closure && isRetainer(c)) {
retainClosure(c, c, getRetainerFrom(c));
} else {
......@@ -1856,6 +1857,15 @@ computeRetainerSet( void )
* However, this is not necessary because any static indirection objects
* are just traversed through to reach dynamic objects. In other words,
* they are not taken into consideration in computing retainer sets.
* SDM (20/7/2011): I don't think this is doing anything sensible,
* because it happens before retainerProfile() and at the beginning of
* retainerProfil() we change the sense of 'flip'. So all of the
* calls to maybeInitRetainerSet() here are initialising retainer sets
* with the wrong flip. Also, I don't see why this is necessary. I
* added a maybeInitRetainerSet() call to retainRoot(), and that seems
* to have fixed the assertion failure in retainerSetOf() I was
* encountering.
* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
resetStaticObjectForRetainerProfiling( StgClosure *static_objects )
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment