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 TAA18517; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:51:40 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA18844 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:51:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from mx03.uni-tuebingen.de (mx03.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.13]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h2PIpcX16529; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:51:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from juist (semeai.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.15.66]) by mx03.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2PIpaMg002875; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:51:37 +0100 Received: from falk by juist with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18xtWJ-000418-00; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:51:35 +0100 X-Face: "iUeUu$b*W_"w?tV83Y3*r:`rh&dRv}$YnZ3,LVeCZSYVuf[Gpo*5%_=/\_!gc_,SS}[~xZ wY77I-M)xHIx:2f56g%/`SOw"Dx%4Xq0&f\Tj~>|QR|vGlU}TBYhiG(K:2 Cc: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Problem with GC and custom blocks References: <246AE82A-5EF1-11D7-B838-0003930FCE12@inria.fr> From: Falk Hueffner Date: 25 Mar 2003 19:51:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: <246AE82A-5EF1-11D7-B838-0003930FCE12@inria.fr> Message-ID: <87vfy77008.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.5 (cabbage) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.0.0.8; AVE 6.18.0.3; VDF 6.18.0.19 X-Spam: no; 0.00; falk:01 hueffner:01 caml-list:01 damien:01 clone:01 camlparam:01 doligez:01 writes:01 address:96 object:03 data:03 let:04 parameter:04 graph:05 blocks:06 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Damien Doligez writes: > What you should do is: > 1. modify clone_graph to take a parameter of type "value" > 2. protect this parameter with CAMLparam1 > > Even if another copy of the same address is protected in > "set_connected_c" under the name of "gv", you still need to protect > it under its new name in clone_graph, so the GC will be able to > update both copies when it moves the data. > > Please let me know if this helps. It helps. It's actually pretty obvious now that I know it, I was just somehow fixed to the idea that the GC considered the object dead erraneously, and did not consider moving... Thanks! -- Falk ------------------- 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