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 HAA30258; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:45:16 +0100 (MET) 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 HAA30241 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:45:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from dell.nogin.org (charter-242-037.caltech.edu [131.215.242.37]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hBH6jDH20773 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:45:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from cs.caltech.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dell.nogin.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBH6jCpT023989 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:45:12 -0800 Message-ID: <3FDFFB78.4010500@cs.caltech.edu> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:45:12 -0800 From: Aleksey Nogin Organization: California Institute of Technology, Computer Science Department User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031023 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caml List Subject: [Caml-list] [3.06] Is there a difference in weak array implementation between the bytecode and native code? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; 3.06:01 bug:01 bug:01 reproducible:01 debugging:01 3.06:01 3.07:01 runtime:01 626:99 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 bytecode:01 caltech:01 caltech:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk I am looking for help tracking a Weak-related bug. For couple of years already our group is having trouble tracking some very elusive bug. Once in a while (quite rarely) in some big Weak array-based code something goes wrong (we get a wrong value). Sometimes the bug is completely random - an identical run does not reproduce it. Sometime it is reproducible in a specific case, but whenever something changes (e.g. any sort of debugging code is added), it goes away. It seems that the bug only occurs in bytecode, but never occurs in native code. So far we've been seeing it only under 3.06 (there are some other issues preventing us from switching to 3.07). I do not know whether this is a bug in our code, in OCaml code, or our code is making some assumptions about the OCaml runtime that are reasonable, but not true... Anyway, I am wondering - is there some difference between the bytecode and native code in how the Weak module behaves (in 3.06)? Anything that could shed some light on why it is the case that we only see this weird bug under bytecode? TIA! -- Aleksey Nogin Home Page: http://nogin.org/ E-Mail: nogin@cs.caltech.edu (office), aleksey@nogin.org (personal) Office: Jorgensen 70, tel: (626) 395-2907 ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners