02:19 <discocaml> <masterbuilder> is it just me or is it a bit weird how the compiler is anthropomorphized at times? Like when there is a dependency cycle between modules it will say something like "This doesn't make sense to me". I feel like I have seen some other examples too which escape me at the moment. It's definitely endearing in a way but also a little jarring, I was kind of confused the first time anyway. Usually compiler messages are really formal. Is this deli

02:44 <discocaml> <anmonteiro> isn't that a dune message?

02:47 <discocaml> <masterbuilder> oh, hmm, might be

07:57 <adrien> is that expected in ocaml -w A? # let compact = Gc.(compact);;

07:57 <adrien> Warning 44 [open-shadow-identifier]: this open statement shadows the value identifier compact (which is later used)

09:16 <octachron> adrien, that should only happen if you have another `compact` in scope at this point.

09:36 <adrien> that was in a fresh 4.13.1 toplevel, or maybe not completely fresh but I was able to reproduce it with a slight difference (I had tried to minimize the reproducer too much)

09:36 <adrien> let compact () = Gc.(compact ());;

09:36 <adrien> or from a shell directly: echo 'let compact () = Gc.(compact ());;' | ocaml -w A

09:42 <octachron> Indeed, I can reproduce with a function. This is probably an interaction with the shadow "compact" name that is introduced in scope to warn on missing `rec`.

13:04 <adrien> so, I switched my map to a reference to a map and every time I can, I remove part of the map; that reduced peak usage by 15% (7GB here) which is less than I had hoped but at least that was simple to implement (I had initially thought about using a hashtable or ephemerons...)