Re: [Caml-list] try...finally , threads, stack-tracebacks .... in ocaml

[Jacques-Henri Jourdan <jacques-henri.jourdan@ens.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2482 bytes --]

Hi,

I recently published a blog post proposing a solution to the backtrace
problem of Ocaml. It includes a Camlp4 filter and a small Ocaml library
to handle exception backtraces. The performance drawback is negligible
when backtraces are not activated, and reasonable when they are.

You can read about it here :

http://gallium.inria.fr/blog/a-library-to-record-ocaml-backtraces/

-- 
JH Jourdan

Le 11/04/2013 00:16, Chet Murthy a écrit :
> 
> People have previously asked about try...finally support in Ocaml, and
> it's been observed (correctly) that you can write a little combinator
> to give you this support, e.g.
> 
> let finally f arg finf =
>   let rv = try Inl(f arg) with e ->
>     Inr e
>   in (try finf arg rv with e -> ());
> 	match rv with
> 		Inl v -> v
> 	  | Inr e -> raise e
> 
> The problem is, you discard stack-traceback when you rethrow the
> exception.  One can program around this explicitly by capturing the
> backtrace string and appending it to the rethrown exception, but it's
> cumbersome and won't work for exceptions like Not_found that are
> already defined without a mutable string slot.
> 
> It sure would be nice of ocaml had try...finally that preserved the
> traceback information properly .... though maybe it isn't possible.
> Certainly in the case where the finally block doesn't raise any
> exceptions itself (even those that are caught silently), it seems like
> it ought to be possible.
> 
> In an unrelated but similar sense, when programming with threads in
> ocaml, it's easy (easy!) to deadlock your program.  Now, I've been
> writing Java programs for years, and so am aware of how careful one
> must be, and I'm writing my code using a single mutex protecting the
> critical section.  But I forgot and didn't mutex-protect one method --
> what merely printed out the contents of a shared daa-structure, and
> when that printout coincided with a thread actually mutating the
> data-structure, I got a deadlock.  Not hard to track down, and I
> chided myself for being lax.
> 
> But the thing is, in Java (blecch!) I would have been able to use the
> "javacore" facility to get a full-thread stack-traceback, and could
> have used that to get a good idea of where my deadlock was.
> 
> I'm not saying that this is something ocaml should have, but I figured
> I'd ask: are others (who use threads in ocaml) wishing for something
> like this?
> 
> --chet--
> 
> 
> 



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]