From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB35BC6B for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:52:13 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAGCxMkfAXQInh2dsb2JhbACPAAEBAQgKKQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,389,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="4033016" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2007 15:52:13 +0100 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lA8EqCw4017001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:52:13 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAGCxMkeBrw8E/2dsb2JhbAA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,389,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="4033013" Received: from ext.lri.fr ([129.175.15.4]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2007 15:52:12 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ext.lri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B32A477D; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:52:12 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at lri.fr Received: from ext.lri.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ext.lri.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F5vMJW2+P6no; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:52:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from [129.175.4.117] (lri4-117 [129.175.4.117]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ext.lri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786CDA466F; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:52:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47332472.8030800@lri.fr> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:00:02 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?SmVhbi1DaHJpc3RvcGhlIEZpbGxpw6J0cmU=?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071023) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Till Varoquaux Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Search for the smallest possible possible Ocaml segfault.... References: <9d3ec8300711080617g1b023711o1a8f9aa50b7874@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9d3ec8300711080617g1b023711o1a8f9aa50b7874@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4733229C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; filliatre:01 lri:01 ocaml:01 segfault:01 ocaml:01 segfault:01 bytecode:01 nativecode:01 -unsafe:01 lri:01 filliatr:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 marshal:01 compiling:02 Till Varoquaux wrote: > what is the smallest possible ocaml program you > can come up with that leads to a reproducible segfault without using > FFI's Obj or Marshal. and I guess you mean in both bytecode and nativecode and without compiling with -unsafe, right? -- Jean-Christophe Filliâtre http://www.lri.fr/~filliatr/