Le 17/10/2010 00:53, Guillaume Yziquel a écrit : > I register an OCaml array with caml_register_generational_global_root. > The array contains functions. The C++ code takes an offset in this array > and calls the function, typically with caml_callback3. > [...] > But it works fine in native code, so I'm not doing things completely > crazily. I'm currently trying to see why I have an invalid opcode there.
This handwaving in English is quite difficult to understand... Couldn't you back it up with a concrete example? Give some commented source code and a way to reproduce the segfault? > Having it global makes me worry a lot about threads, callbacks, why am I > getting an invalid opcode, etc... The runtime is made is such a way that OCaml code should be running in a single thread at any time. Even when dealing with callbacks, you should make sure only one thread of OCaml code is running. > I'm not sure (and I do not believe) that it would solve my issue, but it > would just feel much more 'right' to me. This just sounds like a workaround to me. But I am waiting for an example to make a more confident judgement. > I do not think that the comments in callbacks.c are very enlightening as > to the proper usage of LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE. I'm not saying that it > should be changed, but I do not see why it should be kept this way. It has to have been written this way and not documented for a reason... Cheers, -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
