-[ Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 04:25:50PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones ]---- > I think this must be a bug in your C compiler. The address of list is > stashed in the roots struct, so the C compiler should know that list > can be changed by the call to caml_copy_string.
Are you certain that the C abstract machine allow for any value stored within the frameset of a function to be changed by a function call when the address of the variable at hand is not passed to this function? And mandate the C compiler to handle this scenario? In other words, mandate the C compiler to reload from the stack all values between any function call? I don't think so ; or more likely I have not understood your view on this matter? -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
