From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A80BB9A for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 04:02:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from pih-relay04.plus.net (pih-relay04.plus.net [212.159.14.131]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jA832FGT007744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 04:02:16 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by pih-relay04.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1EZJkT-0003Tw-C3 for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:02:13 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Seeking exception source Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:57:29 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <1131416033.23991.57.camel@rosella> In-Reply-To: <1131416033.23991.57.camel@rosella> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200511080257.30110.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43701537.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 recursion:01 ocaml:01 instrument:98 frog:98 wrote:01 exception:01 exceptions:01 exceptions:01 functions:01 functions:01 caml:02 catching:02 objective:02 perhaps:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Have you tried that static analyser for exceptions? On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:13, skaller wrote: > Any ideas how to do that? Perhaps a camlp4 thing to instrument > marked functions? If you can do this then it could also be used to implement my allocation profiling idea. I'm still learning camlp4 (I'll put up a web page on what I've done ASAP) and I'm not up to that yet, but I think it is entirely feasible. One problem would be the existence of many functions with the same name. > Although it isn't clear catching exceptions costs anything if none are > thrown (other than code bloat)? Non-tail recursion? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Objective CAML for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists