From: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Cc: Thomas.Fischbacher@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] C interface style question
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:17:36 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1137640656.8943.183.camel@rosella> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060119.093955.97297811.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 09:39 +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> From: Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE>
>
> > value-type parameters to C functions exported to OCaml should be
> > registered with CAMLparamX(...). Does this hold in general, or is it
> > considered acceptable/appropriate to just ignore this for "immediate"
> > values that do not hold pointers, but, say, int, bool etc. values?
>
> Registration is required to have the GC properly update the values.
> The GC may be called by any allocation.
> So it is only safe not to register a parameter (or a variable) in any
> of the following 4 cases.
> 1) you know that it can only hold a non-pointer value (int, bool, ...)
> (i.e. the GC has nothing to update)
> 2) there are no allocations in your function
> 3) the parameter is not accessed after the first allocation
> 4) for a new variable whose contents is returned, there is no
> allocation between the setting of the variable and return.
>
> (1) and (2) are relatively easy to see, but (3) and (4) are a bit
> trickier (particularly with side-effecting expressions), so
> it is not a bad idea to register more parameters than strictly
> necessary.
Unless I'm mistaken, 'registration' with these macros
is never required: these macros are simply a high level
abstraction layer providing convenience and relative safety.
The Ocaml manual explains all this fairly well IMHO,
the low level interface is well documented, Hendrik Tews
version is cool:
http://wwwtcs.inf.tu-dresden.de/~tews/htmlman-3.09/manual032.html
See 18.5.2 -- IMHO the low level interface, whilst requiring
more work to apply, is actually easier to understand.
Just one 'BTW': I have seen some code using Field() macro
with incorrect C. You must NOT do this:
MyType *p = ...
(MyType*)Field(v,n) = p;
it isn't valid ISO C for *any* type MyType (not even 'value').
You would have to do it like this:
*(MyType**)(void*)&Field(v,n) = p; // **
However I strongly recommend instead
StoreField(v,n,(value)(void*)p);
The incorrect usage was not detected by older versions of gcc.
Gcc 4.x does detect this error. The workaround (**) is
the ONLY correct way to cast an lvalue in ISO C. This problem
arises in some larger codes where a macro has been used
to do the type conversion .. and it appeared to work
but was in fact invalid C. For example:
#define MyThing(v) (MyType*)Field(v,2)
is not a good idea, since
MyThing(v) = ...
is invalid ISO C but may not even produce a warning. You would
have to instead say:
#define MyThing(v) (*(MyType**)(void*)&Field(v,2))
but it seems better to rewrite your code so values and
lvalues are distinguished by usage (eg 'get' and 'set' macros).
[The intention of the macros is usually to abstract away the
field number]
--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-19 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-18 18:28 Thomas Fischbacher
2006-01-18 19:18 ` [Caml-list] " Gerd Stolpmann
2006-01-18 20:32 ` Florent Monnier
2006-01-18 21:31 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2006-01-18 23:21 ` Florent Monnier
2006-01-18 23:43 ` Robert Roessler
2006-01-19 0:39 ` Jacques Garrigue
2006-01-19 3:17 ` skaller [this message]
2006-01-19 14:09 ` Damien Doligez
2006-01-19 14:17 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2006-01-19 14:24 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2006-01-19 14:52 ` Olivier Andrieu
2006-01-20 10:49 ` Damien Doligez
2006-02-12 20:40 ` Olivier Andrieu
2006-02-13 9:45 ` Damien Doligez
2006-01-19 15:15 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2006-01-30 13:12 ` On Store_field() Thomas Fischbacher
2006-01-30 14:05 ` [Caml-list] " Olivier Andrieu
2006-01-19 12:13 ` [Caml-list] C interface style question Thomas Fischbacher
2006-01-19 13:49 ` Jacques Garrigue
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1137640656.8943.183.camel@rosella \
--to=skaller@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=Thomas.Fischbacher@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox