From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p2P8LEeC001380
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:21:14 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQDAMxPjE3RVaE0kGdsb2JhbAClSAgUAQECCQkNBxQEIakpilQKgheFMi+IXAEBAwWFZASMdYNUTiWEQjoo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,242,1299452400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="103472305"
Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 25 Mar 2011 09:21:09 +0100
Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so1213553fxm.39
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent
         :mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=Dg3O9Kvmw9U85/HpXGWQ1kENc/2UhwVYQww9ZGn41xc=;
        b=NOGAV7GVF+mP7szQYB9CdK4I8v3MJa1PubuX+OEaLra02fbLVBBSsJ0hlYekOY3Hx5
         79j1cX1n2OrdZfib1MYXDDyD261P1ohapcNEOCUwcVzovBL8DGkoIQGiEmCFRHK7mMTy
         E8CcoIR6Ir7ojCMD3f5NhYccCs3LXs6BeOe5s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=LhRlgX6+cwIgAHAdufb2Kb44HN3IXzBMmQlMoXdXF48FMBLxMMQJytDQO29rk3wqb0
         2oj/mN8UIA7FywPPFZ2NciISJB/hgu6/pkcA83W9EvaRVDkE177YympngwhSZDMDZkK0
         cS5q4riRGlmQJ2NTCy6UzOOgpsOKHymmpUynA=
Received: by 10.223.24.213 with SMTP id w21mr525221fab.113.1301041268873;
        Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.1.5] (papillon.metalscan.fr [93.95.58.150])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o17sm285963fal.1.2011.03.25.01.21.06
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D8C5071.2000403@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:21:05 +0100
From: Matthieu Dubuget <matthieu.dubuget@gmail.com>
Reply-To: matthieu.dubuget@gmail.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Caml Mailing List <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [Caml-list] Java JVM is becoming more strict

Hello,

this post is just a short story for the archives of the mailing-list… 
This is about a three days (successful) fight against a bug.

Since more than three year, my colleague is using one DLL of mine. This 
DLL was produced with ocaml, from some caml modules and one hand written 
C file. My colleague is not perfect: he is calling this DLL from one 
Java application.

Last week, for some technical constraints, he had to upgrade the Java 
virtual machine toward a >= 1.6 version.
Since this upgrade, he experienced one exception violation on the first 
call to the DLL (ie when calling caml_startup).

It appeared that some other OCaml DLL were still working fine. We made a 
test, replacing the Caml modules with a minimal .ml file, returning 
static values: this worked without violation exception. After that, we 
printed the dependencies (ocamldep -modules) of the modules.

The problem was that some (unused) debugging code was still there in one 
of them: this module had a dependency toward Printf module. Once this 
dependency was removed, we got read of the exception violation. I wonder 
if this is a bug in OCaml, in the JVM, or a mis-use of the JVM?

Salutations

Matthieu