Would it make sense to elaborate the Haddock docs to explain stuff here? Simon From: Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Carter Schonwald Sent: 16 December 2014 06:45 To: Brandon Simmons Cc: glasgow-haskell-users Subject: Re: Behavior of touch# https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/8c10b67ba049477cc9ed23e61f5bd119e1cefc29/com... and https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/8c10b67ba049477cc9ed23e61f5bd119e1cefc29/com... 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 mailto:carter.schonwald@gmail.com> 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 mailto:brandon.m.simmons@gmail.com> wrote: The `primitive` package exports a lifted version of the undocumented `touch#` http://hackage.haskell.org/package/ghc-prim-0.3.1.0/docs/GHC-Prim.html 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? Brandon _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.orgmailto:Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users