From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p61CsXkv001702
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:54:38 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuwBAJ3CDU7RVdg2kGdsb2JhbAA8AQMSp1gIFAEBAQEJCQ0HFAQhrFSMJIJLhDw5iGgCAwaGLASHOIp6jB48g1w
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,458,1304287200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="97801543"
Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 01 Jul 2011 14:54:37 +0200
Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so2776558qwc.27
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=Yl3/+RgenFyMCQ80P22kEWma6cs4y1ysf66i4rD0Roc=;
        b=ZSrw0JwX3EzEryWb36rYPHbnQob2STXJiNTvmr7hd55cUcEyGC/ZMJm7shma2FOWlP
         L4x72tVJMNVkBs8iAoTamSOYEfYNyRPqsGD+eWq67eK6Fzsqjm/aqEOkEfLEaKmaHtb2
         QT4ASJ1kjEIjdXxeFxFQ0jVbMXiznzQK2//Xg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.99.145 with SMTP id u17mr2460322qcn.236.1309524876622;
 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.249.206 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E0DB5DE.8090309@inria.fr>
References: <BANLkTim=N1j+7J5L5VpkcKNDXZ1zf6mPcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E0DB5DE.8090309@inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:54:36 +0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimx1+O4cXEibBgyE86kbGo-gLUCZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitry Bely <dmitry.bely@gmail.com>
To: Fabrice Le Fessant <Fabrice.Le_fessant@inria.fr>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] GC interface question

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Fabrice Le Fessant
<Fabrice.Le_fessant@inria.fr> wrote:
> I would not call camlidl_alloc_small() without first initializing
> correctly _varg[1] to Val_unit.

Actually, it's initialized to zero. The full generated fragment:

HRESULT STDMETHODCALLTYPE camlidl_ppm_IConfigLoad_setLogger_callback(
	struct IConfigLoad * this,
	/* in */ void *log)
{
  value _varg[2] = { 0, 0, };
  value _vres;
  HRESULT _res;
  (*camlidl_acquire_runtime)();
  Begin_roots_block(_varg, 2)
    _varg[0] = ((struct camlidl_intf *) this)->caml_object;
    _varg[1] = camlidl_alloc_small(1, Abstract_tag);
    Field(_varg[1], 0) = (value) log;
  End_roots()
  _vres = caml_callbackN_exn(caml_get_public_method(_varg[0],
Val_int(1007700946)), 2, _varg);
  if (Is_exception_result(_vres)) {
    _res = camlidl_result_exception(NULL, Extract_exception(_vres));
  } else {
    _res = S_OK;
  }
  (*camlidl_release_runtime)();
  return _res;
}

It was Xavier Leroy who initially decided to use zeroes, so I think it's OK?

- Dmitry Bely