From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p7G7b9Bl006188
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:37:09 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: At8CABAdSk7RVdg2kGdsb2JhbABBqBUIFAEBAQEJCQ0HFAQhgVkCLAEbHgMSEF0BEQEFASI1oTCCVAqMN4JVhSE7iG0CAwaGQQSHWYs5jFk8g2U
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,379,1309730400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="115954660"
Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 16 Aug 2011 09:37:04 +0200
Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so4977105qwc.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=7EZRC5ETc9xOxW1XtCp16477uUl5T3uiT3DWFMMrKsU=;
        b=qwMdoclK93vsyhveyhqWiEUCqs2xvHxZ4AE6dlf4dobYe8PPa1wQlFgHBjLugzEq6U
         d2Ib0MPdEqxL4D/P2CAoS7aRjc/LjF1+yvNxXTE9cCzdqv4wFWV4wadDCNYFsBY3rlCQ
         mfsivBFxYnTccBeryAmvqKrBIsJI4ZQTyIFBQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.68.148 with SMTP id v20mr3189157qci.80.1313480223332; Tue,
 16 Aug 2011 00:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.76.229 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:37:03 +0400
Message-ID: <CAMT7qiQFZysrnMoKMdmG7eK0CBMkdP=NYgymmqXokJxLuQdWZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitry Bely <dmitry.bely@gmail.com>
To: Caml List <caml-list@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [Caml-list] Interfacing with C: bad practice

I would like to share my experience of writing bad C bindings. The
following code is wrong, although no "living in harmony with the
garbage collector" rule seems to be violated:

value wrp_ml_cons (value v, value l)
{
  CAMLparam2(v, l);
  CAMLlocal1(cell);
  cell = caml_alloc_small(2, Tag_cons);
  Field(cell, 0) = v;
  Field(cell, 1) = l;
  CAMLreturn(cell);
}

value string_list(const char ** s)
{
    CAMLparam0();
    CAMLlocal1(list);
    list = Val_emptylist;
    while (*s != NULL) {
        list = wrp_ml_cons(caml_copy_string(*s), list); /* bug! */
    }
    CAMLreturn(list);
}

In the line

        list = wrp_ml_cons(caml_copy_string(*s), list); /* bug! */

C compiler first puts "list" pointer on stack and then calls
caml_copy_string(*s), potentially invalidating "list". Of course, the
stack copy of "list" is not registered as a global root so wrp_ml_cons
gets an invalid value.

Maybe Ocaml docs should be updated to warn about pitfalls like that?

- Dmitry Bely