From: Alex Baretta <alex@baretta.com>
To: Richard Jones <rich@annexia.org>
Cc: Ocaml <caml-list@inria.fr>,
Jacques Garrigue <caml-bugs@pauillac.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocamlc stack overflow (Probably a typechecking bug)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:10:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FC370CE.2050509@baretta.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031125140614.GA5810@redhat.com>
Richard Jones wrote:
> It's only 140 lines of code? Try chopping lines off the end of the
> file until the thing compiles. Then you should be able to isolate
> which statement causes the stack overflow. From there it should be a
> simple enough job to either understand the problem and work around it,
> or else come up with a minimal example which exhibits the bug.
>
> Rich.
>
I don't need to chop off lines of code. I know exactly what line of code
causes the problem. Let me quote it to you:
> let cont f init res execute =
> Local_rules.Rewrite.rewrite_continuation rule_base (cont f)
Let me try to explain the dependency relations in my libraries. You will
see that it is impossible to come up with a "minimal example". I have a
rule-based abstract processor (à la CLIPS) written as functor whose
parameter module defines types "fact" and "fact_base" as well the
operations which can be performed on them. I also have an SQL library
which gives provides a statically typechecked abstract syntax for SQL
and facilities to connect to databases through a doubly generic
interface: the first parameter module provides a database connection
layer, the second parameter (we call it the Access module) provides the
type information to the ocaml typechecking system to achieve static
typechecking of SQL in ocaml. This same generic library has a query
rewriting rule engine à la PostgreSQL which defines a fact base module
for the rule-based processor. This rewrite-rule functor takes an Access
parameter, which must match the Access parameter passed to the DB
functor. The actual rewrite rules are also defined in a functor which
takes an Access module as a parameter.
Finally, I have an embedded-sql syntax extension which provides the
syntactic sugar to make everything nice and easy in an ocaml source
file. This syntax extension transforms SQL queries in concrete syntax
into an ocaml module which instantiates the DB functor and the
rewrite-rule engine with the same Access module. Since no module has an
explicit signature hiding the type representations, I would expect the
compiler to be able to figure things out correctly. Instead, I used to
get error messages of the following kind.
> File "inserimento_enti.xcaml", line 95, characters 56-65:
> This expression has type
> Local_rules.Rewrite.Rules.rule_base =
> Local_rules.Rewrite.Rules.rule list
> Map.Make(Local_rules.Rewrite.Rules.Fact_class_order).t
> but is here used with type
> RW.Rules.rule list RW.Rules.FCM.t =
> RW.Rules.rule list Map.Make(RW.Rules.Fact_class_order).t
Which points to the following line:
> let cont f init res execute =
> RW.rewrite_continuation rule_base (cont f)
It is worth noting that the following module definitions imply that the
error message is actually wrong.
> (* in Inserimento_enti *)
> module Local_rules = Generic_rules (Anagrafiche_logical)
> module RW = Local_rules.Rewrite
Intuitively, I'd say the type checker is having some real trouble with
the complex module operations I use. But, then again, there might be a
problem in my code. So, I removed the RW definition and changed the
troublesome line to the one originally mentioned in this post:
> let cont f init res execute =
> Local_rules.Rewrite.rewrite_continuation rule_base (cont f)
Now, this really turns the typechecker nuts. It simply cannot state that
there is a type error for the inferred type is identical to the actual
type. Here comes the stack overflow problem.
So, dear caml riders and caml breeders, how do we get out of this
impasse? I'm willing to submit my entire source tree. (I'd release it
GPLed if only I had time to write a minimum of documentation and got it
to compile properly...).
Alex
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-11-25 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-24 17:21 [Caml-list] Ocamlc stack overflow Alex Baretta
2003-11-24 17:47 ` Richard Jones
2003-11-25 13:19 ` Alex Baretta
2003-11-25 14:06 ` Richard Jones
2003-11-25 15:10 ` Alex Baretta [this message]
2003-11-25 17:50 ` Xavier Leroy
2003-11-24 18:22 ` Damien Doligez
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=3FC370CE.2050509@baretta.com \
--to=alex@baretta.com \
--cc=caml-bugs@pauillac.inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=rich@annexia.org \
/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