On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:06 PM, John Carr <[email protected]> wrote: > > Richard W.M. Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:37:03AM +0400, Dmitry Bely wrote: > > > C compiler first puts "list" pointer on stack and then calls > > > caml_copy_string(*s), potentially invalidating "list". Of course, the > > > stack copy of "list" is not registered as a global root so wrp_ml_cons > > > gets an invalid value. > > > > I think this must be a bug in your C compiler. The address of list is > > stashed in the roots struct, so the C compiler should know that list > > can be changed by the call to caml_copy_string. >
Maybe looking at the assembly output would help. If you can post the output with gcc -S flag. Cheers; Wojciech The call > > f(g(), x) > > can behave as either > > temp1 = g() > temp2 = x > f(temp1, temp2) > > or > > temp1 = x > temp2 = g() > f(temp2, temp1) > > The order does not need to be deterministic. > > If the call to g() changes x, the second order results in the > function f() receiving the "wrong" value. > > --John Carr ([email protected]) > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > > -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
