I was wondering if it was possible for ocamlyacc to perform error recovery by
attempting to insert a token in the stream and continuing to parse. The docs
indicate that the error recovery mechanism is mostly centered around discarding
tokens, but in this case I'd like to attempt to insert a
I've observed the following gc crash with my ocaml (3.11.2) application, after
attempting to implement a memory-flushing routine with Gc.create_alarm:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x007c15a7 in caml_fl_allocate (wo_sz=value optimized out) at
freelist.c:171
171
I'm curious whether there are any notes / pointers regarding the completeness
of the ocaml-java implementation (couldn't find this on the web site). I'm
wondering about the feasibility of using it for a moderately large ocaml
project I've been working on which uses Lwt to perform async I/O. I
On Mar 1, 2010, at 12:54 AM, Richard Jones wrote:
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 04:16:03PM -0800, Warren Harris wrote:
I would like to determine what percentage of my application's cpu
time
is spent in the garbage collector (for tuning purposes, but also just
to monitor the overhead
On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Peter Hawkins wrote:
I would have recommended using oprofile on linux, which I greatly
prefer to GCC's built-in profiling support for profiling C programs.
It has a low and tunable overhead, and because it's a sampling
profiler it doesn't perturb the results
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
You can have a look at:
http://ocamlviz.forge.ocamlcore.org
This allow to instrument your code and watch GC activity. I think that
with a little a little help on program side, you can be quite precise
about GC without using gprof at all. This
like I'd need to hack my runtime a bit to get this though.
Warren
On Mar 2, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Peter Hawkins wrote:
Hi...
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Warren Harris warrensomeb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Peter - gprof with ocaml works quite well:
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml
I would like to determine what percentage of my application's cpu time
is spent in the garbage collector (for tuning purposes, but also just
to monitor the overhead). Is there any way to obtain this information
short of using gprof? Additional information provided by Gc.stat would
be
Is there any advantage to using lazy evaluation in ocaml rather than
just using thunks to defer evaluation? E.g.
let x = lazy (3+4)
let y = Lazy.force x
vs:
let x = fun () - 3+4
let y = x ()
Perhaps it's just that the type int lazy_t is more informative than
unit - int?
Warren
On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Martin Jambon wrote:
Oops.
The following makes it possible for f to be garbage-collected:
[...]
If I understand correctly, the closure associated with f will be
collectable after the lazy_t is forced, whereas before its lifetime
would be bound to the
of conversions, but I have no idea whether these are actually
useful, or simply legacy artifacts.
I think my unicode needs are fairly simple, but then again, maybe
everyone thinks that as they're diving off this cliff. :-)
Warren
--
Warren Harris
war...@metaweb.com
Metaweb Technologies
http
I stumbled upon a little puzzle that I can't quite work out. I'm
trying to use polymorphic variants as phantom types and in one
particular situation involving a polymorphic type with an invariant
type parameter (Lwt.t) the compiler is unhappy with a set of mutually
recursive functions. I
Mauricio,
Thanks for your response...
On Mar 25, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Mauricio Fernandez - m...@acm.org wrote:
The Lwt.t type is abstract and invariant since no annotation has
been given
for the type variable (you'd need it to be type +'a t):
...
Unfortunately, the type variable is in
On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your (dual) suggestion of compilation of Java sources
into either OCaml sources of OCaml binaries for ocamlrun
(or even interpretation of Java bytecode) is interesting.
The Java language is clearly easy to parse, type,
Interesting project. Looks like you're mostly focused on getting ocaml
code to run in a jvm. Have you given any consideration to making
things work the other way around? I've found the ocaml runtime to be
far superior, and it would be nice to be able to recompile a java
library (source or
from A to B is maintained. Can anyone verify?
Thanks,
Warren Harris
Metaweb Technologies
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:48 AM, CUOQ Pascal - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Warren Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to understand better how ocaml's weak pointers operate.
You will be interested in the following important article:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1411308
:)
Thank
as desired, although this solution
seems somewhat round-about, and was difficult to arrive at. Can anyone
suggest another approach that prevents the dreaded underscores? (Note
that using objects instead of records exhibits the exact same behavior.)
Warren Harris
Metaweb Technologies
smime.p7s
I've been wondering whether the ocaml compiler does any sort of
parameter passing optimizations for data structures, e.g. stack
allocating, or destructuring them when it can determine their scope
does not escape the call. My first conclusion is that it does for
tuples only, but I wanted to
metaocaml for this would seem to offer the
best of both worlds: http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/~carette/publications/scp_metamonads.pdf)
Warren
On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:32 PM, Brian Hurt wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Warren Harris wrote:
I'm considering writing a moderate sized program with high
20 matches
Mail list logo
