From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fabrice.le_fessant@inria.fr>
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915D7BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed,  2 Jun 2010 18:39:00 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,348,1272837600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="51647192"
Received: from peermanence.saclay.inria.fr (HELO [195.83.212.205]) ([195.83.212.205])
  by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2010 18:39:00 +0200
Message-ID: <4C06897D.3010008@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:40:29 +0200
From: Fabrice Le Fessant <fabrice.le_fessant@inria.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mathias Kende <mathias.kende@ens.fr>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Difference between ocamlc and ocamlopt when marshalling
 reference
References: <1275480999.5099.19.camel@bohrium.pps.jussieu.fr>
In-Reply-To: <1275480999.5099.19.camel@bohrium.pps.jussieu.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlc:01 ocamlopt:01 marshalling:01 bytecode:01 pointer:01 bytecode:01 marshalling:01 ocamlc:01 ocamlopt:01 printf:01 printf:01 cheers:01 beginner's:01 ocaml:01 bug:01 

Hi,

  The main difference is that "p" is a closure in bytecode, but just a
pointer in native code: in bytecode, "p" references "r", and so a
closure is needed; in native code, the reference to "r" in "p" is a
direct access to the module structure, and so "p" does not need to keep
a reference to "r". So, when you marshal "p" in bytecode, you follow the
closure and the reference, that are stored in "s", and they are
duplicated when "s" is unmarshalled.

  I think Marshal.Closures is only expected for hacking anyway, so you
should not really assume anything on its behavior ;-)

--Fabrice

Mathias Kende wrote, On 06/02/2010 02:16 PM:
> Hi,
> 
> I found a difference on the way global references used inside a function
> are handled with respect to marshalling between ocamlc and ocamlopt.
> 
> See the exemple below :
> 
> -------------- a.ml ---------------
> let r = ref 0
> let p () = Printf.printf "%d\n" !r
> let s = Marshal.to_string p [Marshal.Closures]
> let () = r := 1
> let q : unit -> unit = Marshal.from_string s 0
> let () = q ()
> -----------------------------------
> $ ocamlc a.ml
> $ ./a.out
> 0
> $ ocamlopt a.ml
> $ ./a.out 
> 1
> -----------------------------------
> 
> I am not sure which semantic is the "good" one. They are both
> interesting, but having only one is definitely simpler.
> 
> Is this a known problem ? is there fundamental reasons in the compilers
> for which it can not be changed ?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mathias
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> 

-- 
Fabrice LE FESSANT
Chercheur, Equipe ASAP
(As Scalable As Possible)
http://www.lefessant.net/

INRIA-Futurs, Bat P - 112
Parc Orsay Université
2-4, rue Jacques Monod
F-91893 Orsay Cedex, FRANCE