From: Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@inria.fr>
To: caml-list <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Cc: Joel Stanley <jstanley@galois.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Using the C FFI to wrap an OCaml library
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:26:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <24097E85-C08E-4547-986B-4EF91B7692C3@inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <85FB0157-5721-45F1-9440-A3021913BA1F@galois.com>
On 2008-02-07, at 00:54, Joel Stanley wrote:
> 1. Can the CAMLparam*/CAMLlocal*/CAMLreturn macros be used to safely
> carry values of type 'value' between C functions (even C functions
> that
> have the appropriate CAMLparam/CAMLreturn invocations present)?
Yes, they are designed for that.
> I
> thought this worked, but more extensive testing has yielded some hangs
> with the stack trace looking like:
>
> #0 0x00002b98 in caml_oldify_local_roots ()
> #1 0x00004dd7 in caml_empty_minor_heap ()
> #2 0x00004f28 in caml_minor_collection ()
> #3 0x00003501 in caml_garbage_collection ()
> #4 0x00011888 in caml_call_gc ()
> #5 0x00013577 in run_solver ()
> #6 0x00013cb4 in main ()
>
> where run_solver here is the C function that is passed an opaque
> object
> reference (elided by a value of type 'value') from another C function,
> and is calling methods repeatedly on the provided object via
> caml_callback.
This could be anything, the most likely is that you used "return"
somewhere instead of "CAMLreturn".
> Looking at the macro expansions, I'm suspicious about the safety
> between
> C functions,
Could you elaborate on what makes you say that? The macros carefully
implement a stack discipline designed for nested calls.
> and wonder if the only way to carry data is use
> caml_register_global_root (and manage my own memory if I need dynamic
> allocation).
You don't want to do that, it would be too inefficient.
> 2. As a follow-up question to #1, the OCaml values may need to be
> carried across yet another FFI, in this case, C <-> Poly/ML . Even if
> using the macros was a safe way to carry values between C functions,
> I"m
> not sure I can easily replicate the macros on the other side of the
> FFI,
> so am wondering if an explicit memory management approach using
> caml_register_global_root will work. E.g.,
>
> value* alloc_value() {
> value* p = malloc(sizeof(value));
> caml_register_global_root(p);
> return p;
> }
In order to make this work, you have to explain to Poly/ML that every
access to the value must be done through the value*. Or you need to
make
sure that Poly/ML code never allocates in the OCaml heap, and never
calls
back to a C function that does.
I think it's more reasonable to just copy the data between worlds
instead
of trying to share pointers between OCaml and Poly/ML.
-- Damien
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-07 22:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-06 23:54 Joel Stanley
2008-02-07 22:26 ` Damien Doligez [this message]
2008-02-08 21:53 ` [Caml-list] " Joel Stanley
2008-02-09 4:07 ` Jonathan Bryant
2008-02-12 21:58 ` Damien Doligez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=24097E85-C08E-4547-986B-4EF91B7692C3@inria.fr \
--to=damien.doligez@inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
--cc=jstanley@galois.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).