From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p61Ej5nb007697
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:45:05 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnICAPLcDU7RVdg2kGdsb2JhbAA8AQMSp1sIFAEBAQEJCQ0HFAQhiHmid4wkgkuEQTmIaAIDBoYsBIc4inqMHjyDXA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,458,1304287200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="86436706"
Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 01 Jul 2011 16:44:59 +0200
Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so2859284qwc.27
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:44:58 -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=fQLO2FTOSyqDAPwT/VoMK3dJWRO0BAC8fkwLOy74Zs0=;
        b=gU2Dk8JhqvpETjomjKruU0d0J6rxyMGlYkNbnx92ERqCY6PJBkkVdKFfXHxOs/Vqpf
         lMYRj67jdw4ix6pOa5P/jSYQ+xQFUImUoENyR5tDOgr+x1BoWRy4aAMMkGDnPEVe/aML
         ob9elL25pobdO+/BSzUXsTGgFc01BOC0i/Kbo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.61.102 with SMTP id s38mr2560131qch.198.1309531498313;
 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.249.206 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E0DCD7C.5010907@inria.fr>
References: <BANLkTim=N1j+7J5L5VpkcKNDXZ1zf6mPcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E0DB5DE.8090309@inria.fr>
	<BANLkTimx1+O4cXEibBgyE86kbGo-gLUCZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E0DCD7C.5010907@inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:44:58 +0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinxLrCwqEouacuHN9-naheEbD6QNg@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 5:37 PM, Fabrice Le Fessant
<Fabrice.Le_fessant@inria.fr> wrote:
> Initialization to 0 for _varg is OK, of course.
>
> What does camlidl_acquire_runtime do ? I couldn't find it in camlidl
> sources.

Yes, that's my modification. Original camlidl is not thread-safe.
Basically camlidl_acquire_runtime does caml_c_thread_register and
caml_leave_blocking_section. camlidl_release_runtime points to
caml_enter_blocking_section.

> Is it possible it could trigger some garbage collection ?

AFAIK, caml_leave_blocking_section() cannot trigger GC (while
caml_enter_blocking_section can).

> Is the field this->caml_object protected from a GC move during
> camlidl_acquire_runtime() ?

Yes, by caml_register_global_root.

Returning to my question:

value _varg[2] = { 0, 0, };

Is such initialization with zero normal?

- Dmitry Bely