From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA14030 for caml-redistribution; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 21:17:15 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA23480 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:57:59 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from tobago.inria.fr (tobago.inria.fr [128.93.8.21])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06968;
	Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:57:57 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from doligez@localhost) by tobago.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) id RAA18349; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:57:56 +0200
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:57:56 +0200
From: Damien Doligez <Damien.Doligez@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <199908201557.RAA18349@tobago.inria.fr>
To: patrick.goldbronn@cea.fr
Subject: Re:  le GC et les bidouilles en C
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Sender: weis

>From: Patrick Goldbronn - SYSCO <patrick.goldbronn@cea.fr>

>Je déclare un type record :
>type toto = {
>        un : float array ;
>        deux : int ;
>} ;;

>modify(&Field(mytoto_v,1),Val_int(1)) ;

ou bien:

   Store_field (mytoto_v, 1, Val_int (1));


>Il n'y a pas besoin de declarer "deux" mutable ?

Dans l'implementation actuelle, non, MAIS il est facile d'imaginer des
optimisations qui seraient cassees par cette absence de declaration.

Donc il vaut mieux declarer "deux" mutable.

-- Damien