From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA28557; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:29:09 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA28607 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:29:08 +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 KAA27311 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:54:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (tequila.cs.yale.edu [128.36.229.152])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f548s3D21368
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:54:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by tequila.cs.yale.edu (8.11.0/8.9.3) with SMTP id f548rt218969
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 04:53:55 -0400
To: caml-list@inria.fr
From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists.caml/news/@rum.cs.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: lists.caml
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Win32 API
References: <00c301c0ea11$17a38570$22f65140@w2kpro> <20010601001301.A11836@verdot.inria.fr> <00ff01c0ea25$68d716f0$22f65140@w2kpro> <20010601134802.G15012@verdot.inria.fr> <008101c0ecab$148c84d0$22f65140@w2kpro> <008101c0ecab$148c84d0$22f65140@w2kpro> <20010604064936.A23225@verdot.inria.fr>
Date: 04 Jun 2001 04:53:51 -0400
Message-ID: <5lwv6s1v8g.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.104
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Path: rum.cs.yale.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: rum.cs.yale.edu
X-Trace: 4 Jun 2001 04:53:52 -0400, rum.cs.yale.edu
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:01:49PM -0700, Harry Chomsky wrote:
>> Now, what happens in the following situation?
>> some_function(alloc_something(), alloc_something_else());
> It is unsafe. In C, you cannot call a function of two parameters if one
> can modify the evaluation of the other.

It is unsafe in the case of O'Caml because of the GC, but as far as C
is concerned, this is not unsafe but only undefined since the
evaluation order is undefined.  And since in this case you don't care
which value you get, the undefinedness would be irrelevant.


	Stefan
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr