Behavior of touch#

Simon Peyton Jones simonpj at
Tue Dec 16 09:00:10 UTC 2014

Would it make sense to elaborate the Haddock docs to explain stuff here?


From: Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-bounces at] On Behalf Of Carter Schonwald
Sent: 16 December 2014 06:45
To: Brandon Simmons
Cc: glasgow-haskell-users
Subject: Re: Behavior of touch#


spell it out a bit more

so touch is preserved through the CMM level, and then gets erased when doing final code gen.
Its meant to ensure on heap pointers remain reachable

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald at<mailto:carter.schonwald at>> wrote:
the point of touch is to prevent premature GC, it actually gets erased at the CMM level i believe.
That is, it only makes sense to apply touch to lifted types on the heap!

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Brandon Simmons <brandon.m.simmons at<mailto:brandon.m.simmons at>> wrote:
The `primitive` package exports a lifted version of the undocumented `touch#`

which has type:

    touch :: PrimMonad m => a -> m ()

I'd like to know if this works correctly in general, or will it suffer
from the same gotches w/r/t unboxing as with addFinalizer and Weak
references? i.e. must it only be passed an unboxed type?

Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users at<mailto:Glasgow-haskell-users at>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list