From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2177EE80
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:55:25 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net) identity=pra;
  client-ip=176.9.138.55;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net designates 176.9.138.55 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=176.9.138.55;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  postmaster@mail.etorok.net designates 176.9.138.55 as
  permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=176.9.138.55;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail.etorok.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAMKAS1GwCYo3/2dsb2JhbABDhDbBHIFcFnSCJAEBBAFAAQE2AgQLCyEWDwkDAgECAUUTCAKICgcDryOEOwEFjloGjxgWgyqWZ5ECgww
X-IPAS-Result: AgEFAMKAS1GwCYo3/2dsb2JhbABDhDbBHIFcFnSCJAEBBAFAAQE2AgQLCyEWDwkDAgECAUUTCAKICgcDryOEOwEFjloGjxgWgyqWZ5ECgww
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,888,1355094000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="7392250"
Received: from mail.etorok.net ([176.9.138.55])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2013 22:55:25 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:2f09:4080:190:1e6f:65ff:fe23:db0d] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2f09:4080:190:1e6f:65ff:fe23:db0d])
	by mail.etorok.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E787246D5
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:55:23 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=etorok.net;
	s=MAILOUT; t=1363902924;
	bh=ATlyfQsj7H2L0X6Y44ZsR4OPXG7DgwfbAK9kNfynMGU=;
	h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:
	 In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
	b=fkP90jSLaaRpSBrdwbJeDePeyFcur7UvcMGZxd1nFvMPAwRUoE7Hkf9sIQHVNT7Cm
	 gYAc80UMx0H2zEO9DlHmppJRqG7Ehmx0MnqPRt7JzMEd3lcnBOKLEyuBx4a9+vGJo2
	 trPzYw+4aAWfMb5F6w91uZxM3Tcuf1CjTNtuxtig=
Message-ID: <514B81CB.3070103@etorok.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:55:23 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?= <edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130116 Icedove/10.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <fa.e3jKyg6bl9+vTkPgypQ4ZRzEoos@ifi.uio.no>	<878v5lca2c.fsf@li195-236.members.linode.com>	<CAGmVoG15XvxWb9SEkV_uj3v7SwB4r9W0K9=8UDPVEEGghkDBoQ@mail.gmail.com>	<9813208.KJBpLPkkvX@groupon>	<069c01ce25ab$a9cf3f10$fd6dbd30$@ffconsultancy.com> <CACLX4jTuV-M5HYDgbJdE9H5EC_FbCfy5uw4CvpKUTk5cJw=VdA@mail.gmail.com> <06b901ce25ca$cc415be0$64c413a0$@ffconsultancy.com>
In-Reply-To: <06b901ce25ca$cc415be0$64c413a0$@ffconsultancy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.6 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Haskell vs OCaml

On 03/21/2013 02:26 AM, Jon Harrop wrote:

> Presenta is obviously a counter-example for reliability. 100% OCaml code
> isn't supposed to be able to segfault...

Were you able to track down the cause?
I'm aware of at least one problem before OCaml 4.00.0 (segfault instead of stack overflow,
possible even with pure OCaml code, because even that would eventually call the C functions in the stdlib), but I'm sure there
can be other reasons.

On a related note perhaps it would be useful to have a tool that checks whether OCaml code (and its dependencies!) uses "unsafe" features,
or lacks tail calls, etc.

Best regards,
--Edwin