From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cedilla@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD36BBCA
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed,  2 Apr 2008 05:13:13 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnIBABOX8kfRVZKwc2dsb2JhbACRSwEMAwQFCRSUFoYl
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,590,1199660400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="24482144"
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.176])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2008 05:13:13 +0200
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k17so2862084waf.3
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=d18Pb0qFyRACq3Mk2+oMI1gEN4ImKG0gJvv6eCwFeuM=;
        b=tUtIr1jnOF/Yxq+UA919UZiBnT/uD2s7dAtWjo7suX2i+dqS+0h2nXUwDeWFo+X9JBGTlfpkGvRnn3irSU5zDmRGipcZ3iSChlR2UZesZ0Usx1Axy0AqtDV5vtzwnx7sIK+hVV9VqddFTeiRv5F5G02xSY5V3ExwVAMQpVvxMKc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ehvG6qxYm2fKo7hl5UkKUv+UaKDR7IoHHZRjsk4eF/HGARhkmjmfTVXbrtzTgasQ52HZfJiDvIK5w51ybEVopr81C4JvkLiGuD82muC1NFW5oT29I6ovuqOqUsn1b0dL+6uisxu2XTIIzWWOUuf8RjoghIBUlmDHot6wSxk4IRk=
Received: by 10.114.181.6 with SMTP id d6mr13879242waf.50.1207105991826;
        Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [75.11.165.6])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l22sm2238165waf.10.2008.04.01.20.13.09
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <47F2F9BC.4020502@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:13:00 -0700
From: Reed Wilson <cedilla@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: enter_blocking_section() and string modifications
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; low-level:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 allocating:01 heap:01 data:02 string:02 string:02 external:03 character:04 crashed:04 blocking:04 blocking:04 quite:08 function:08 

Hi guys!

I'm currently writing a multi-threaded program, and part of the program 
is low-level string manipulation. I found that (with the code I'm using) 
making a tight C loop is quite a bit faster than using OCaml, so I'm 
using an external function for that.

My question is: can I use enter_blocking_section() for character 
replacement on an OCaml string? I know I can't use it for allocating 
anything on the heap due to the possibility of the GC doing funny things 
with it, but would straight replacement of existing string data be OK?

I did a test which runs OK, but "has not crashed" <> "will not crash"...

Thanks,
Reed