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 LAA15990; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:43:06 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 LAA16037 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:43:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5I9h3n00828; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:43:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA16098; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:43:03 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:43:03 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: David McClain Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Threading and C code Message-ID: <20010618114303.B15736@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <00b201c0f500$f59483d0$210148bf@dylan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <00b201c0f500$f59483d0$210148bf@dylan>; from dmcclain1@mindspring.com on Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 11:36:41AM -0700 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > After searching through the sources for the threads lib I find that two > entry points are used to negotiate this possibility -- > enter_blocking_section() and leave_blocking_section(). These appear to be > needed around any code that could possibly block. This is correct. > These aren't mentioned in any of the normal header files in /ocaml/lib/caml > but I think they ought to be. Is this protocol subject to change? or can it > be made a standard protocol for C external functions? This protocol hasn't changed in many years, so I agree it should be documented. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr