From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mathias@kende.fr>
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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331F8BBC1
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:49:01 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AowAABfi/UfU4363k2dsb2JhbACRTQEBAQEJAwkJFpl3
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,636,1199660400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="24852902"
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.183])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 Apr 2008 18:49:00 +0200
Received: from [134.158.129.229] (polvisit10.in2p3.fr [134.158.129.229])
	by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu5) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
	id 0ML25U-1JjzxM062j-0001NH; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:49:00 +0200
Message-ID: <47FE4533.5090402@kende.fr>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:49:55 +0200
From: Mathias Kende <mathias@kende.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Question about CAMLparamx macros
References: <47FE3E65.7030907@rice.edu>
In-Reply-To: <47FE3E65.7030907@rice.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+HGAEK73z80O5DFdFs691QEF7HCsg9w5EmVqz
 fuRGYDuHFzww4NsfI/nn6AVH4A2tasB0kPN8vKywzmVC63WDh6
 Vp/8L832UqlclnWoBwKAd/e9YFWeUqL
X-Spam: no; 0.00; alloc:01 foo:01 foo:01 camlparam:01 camlreturn:01 mathias:98 mathias:98 caml-list:01 functions:01 macros:01 macros:01 int:01 int:01 callback:02 callback:02 


Raj Bandyopadhyay a écrit :
> Do I have to use the CAMLparamx/CAMLlocalx/CAMLreturnx macros in the 
> above cases? Would it cause problems if I used them anyway?

You should at least use these macros when the GC may be triggered during your C 
function (e.g. with calls to some of the alloc_ functions) and you have local 
"value", even if your function does not accept value as argument and/or does not 
return a "value" variable.

 > value foo(int x){
 >    return caml_callback();
 > }
 >
 > should be replaced by
 >
 > value foo(int x){
 >    CAMLparam0();
 >    CAMLreturn(caml_callback());
 > }

I believe that the first is correct, but I am not a real guru of this Ocaml-C 
binding, so I am not sure of this.

Mathias