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 JAA10821; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:36:52 +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 JAA10815 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:36:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from beaune.inria.fr (beaune.inria.fr [128.93.8.3]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f947aoP28166; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:36:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by beaune.inria.fr (8.8.8/1.1.22.3/14Sep99-0328PM) id JAA0000032278; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:36:50 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:36:50 +0200 (MET DST) From: Damien Doligez Message-Id: <200110040736.JAA0000032278@beaune.inria.fr> To: danieljg@sundial.cs.cornell.edu, jgm@cs.cornell.edu, pierre.weis@inria.fr Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Pattern matcher no more supposed to warn on non exhaustive patterns ? Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >From: "Gregory Morrisett" >The same thing shows up in SML/NJ with CML. The problem is that >in the presence of threads, you really shouldn't be able to=20 >dereference a mutable value in your patterns. I'd agree that core dump is surprising, but if your multi-threaded program does anything with a mutable value without the protection of a mutex, then it is incorrect (i.e. its semantics is unspecified). In O'Caml, none of the operations is specified as atomic (except a few things in the threads library), and you shouldn't assume that they are. -- Damien ------------------- 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