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 SAA11214 for caml-red; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:40:22 +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 MAA17451 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:54:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from miss.wu-wien.ac.at (miss.wu-wien.ac.at [137.208.107.17]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e7BAs8v12455; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:54:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from mottl@localhost) by miss.wu-wien.ac.at (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA31069; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:54:11 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:54:11 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Xavier Leroy Cc: Nicolas Joliot , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Interfa=E7age_C=2FCAML?= Message-ID: <20000811125411.A28948@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> References: <3992D2D9.906E0BA7@irisa.fr> <20000810191404.A21178@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> <20000811102447.47236@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000811102447.47236@pauillac.inria.fr>; from Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr on Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 10:24:47 +0200 Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > It seems that a common bug has struck again: using "Store_{whatever}" in > > C-interfaces is only allowed (and then mandatory) with structured blocks. > > Using it for anything else may crash the GC. > > No, no, no! Store_field can only be used (and is mandatory) for > structured blocks (with tag < No_scan_tag), but Store_double_field > can be used (and is mandatory) for blocks with tag Double_array_tag. Uff, yes, indeed, my explanation of "Store_{whatever}" was actually correct, but I forgot about the specific treatment of double arrays (or more precisely: values with the "Double_array_tag"), which are unboxed and therefore do not fall under the rules for structured blocks. Sorry for the confusion! Since I had seen problems with "Store_{...}" already three times, I didn't think further about the special case... Best regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl