Foreign.ForeignPtr is a magic wand you can wave at C libraries to make them suddenly garbage collected. It’s not quite that simple, but it is pretty darn simple. Here are a few quick tips from the trenches for using foreign pointers effectively with the Haskell FFI:

Use them as early as possible. As soon as a pointer which you are expected to free is passed to you from a foreign imported function, you should wrap it up in a ForeignPtr before doing anything else: this responsibility lies soundly in the low-level binding. Find the functions that you have to import as FunPtr . If you’re using c2hs, declare your pointers foreign .

. If you’re using c2hs, declare your pointers . As an exception to the above point, you may need to tread carefully if the C library offers more than one way to free pointers that it passes you; an example would be a function that takes a pointer and destroys it (likely not freeing the memory, but reusing it), and returns a new pointer. If you wrapped it in a ForeignPtr, when it gets garbage collected you will have a double-free on your hands. If this is the primary mode of operation, consider a ForeignPtr (Ptr a) and a customized free that pokes the outside foreign pointer and then frees the inner pointer. If there is no logical continuity with respect to the pointers it frees, you can use a StablePtr to keep your ForeignPtr from ever being garbage collected, but this is effectively a memory leak. Once a foreign pointer, always a foreign pointer, so if you can’t commit until garbage do us part, don’t use them.

and a customized free that pokes the outside foreign pointer and then frees the inner pointer. If there is no logical continuity with respect to the pointers it frees, you can use a to keep your from ever being garbage collected, but this is effectively a memory leak. Once a foreign pointer, always a foreign pointer, so if you can’t commit until garbage do us part, don’t use them. You may pass foreign pointers to user code as opaque references, which can result in the preponderance of newtypes. It is quite useful to define withOpaqueType so you don’t have to pattern-match and then use withForeignPtr every time your own code peeks inside the black box.

so you don’t have to pattern-match and then use every time your own code peeks inside the black box. Be careful to use the library’s free equivalent. While on systems unified by libc, you can probably get away with using free on the int* array you got (because most libraries use malloc under the hood), this code is not portable and will almost assuredly crash if you try compiling on Windows. And, of course, complicated structs may require more complicated deallocation strategies. (This was in fact the only bug that hit me when I tested my own library on Windows, and it was quite frustrating until I remembered Raymond’s blog post.)

equivalent. While on systems unified by libc, you can probably get away with using on the array you got (because most libraries use under the hood), this code is not portable and will almost assuredly crash if you try compiling on Windows. And, of course, complicated structs may require more complicated deallocation strategies. (This was in fact the only bug that hit me when I tested my own library on Windows, and it was quite frustrating until I remembered Raymond’s blog post.) If you have pointers to data that is being memory managed by another pointer which is inside a ForeignPtr, extreme care must be taken to prevent freeing the ForeignPtr while you have those pointers lying around. There are several approaches: Capture the sub-pointers in a Monad with rank-2 types (see the ST monad for an example), and require that the monad be run within a withForeignPtr to guarantee that the master pointer stays alive while the sub-pointers are around, and guarantee that the sub-pointer can’t leak out of the context. Do funny things with Foreign.ForeignPtr.Concurrent , which allows you to use Haskell code as finalizers: reference counting and dependency tracking (only so long as your finalizer is content with being run after the master finalizer) are possible. I find this very unsatisfying, and the guarantees you can get are not always very good.

If you don’t need to release a pointer into the wild, don’t! Simon Marlow acknowledges that finalizers can lead to all sorts of pain, and if you can get away with giving users only a bracketing function, you should consider it. Your memory usage and object lifetime will be far more predictable.