On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 12:50:22AM -0700, Ryan Ingram wrote: > Ah, sneaky. That code is fine because it uses unsafeCoerce# on "memcpy", > changing memcpy from whatever type it is, into > MutableByteArray# s# -> MutableByteArray# s# -> Int# -> s# -> (# s#, () #) > > So as long as the GC understands MutableByteArray# it's safe; it's relying > on the C calling convention being handled properly.
Which still isn't quite correct, because the code for
base-2.1:Data.Array.Base.memcpy could still be perverse and trigger a
GC. However, since base is version-locked to GHC, it can depend on as
much undocumented behaviour as it needs. The worst that can happen is a
few more testsuite failures when someone tries to change the compiler.
> On 8/21/07, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Stefan,
> >
> > Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 10:08:59 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > > Your code is broken in a most evil and insidious way.
> >
> > and this code, too? :)
> >
> > freezeSTUArray :: Ix i => STUArray s i e -> ST s (UArray i e)
> > freezeSTUArray (STUArray l u marr#) = ST $ \s1# ->
> > case sizeofMutableByteArray# marr# of { n# ->
> > case newByteArray# n# s1# of { (# s2#, marr'# #) ->
> > case unsafeCoerce# memcpy marr'# marr# n# s2# of { (# s3#, () #) ->
> > case unsafeFreezeByteArray# marr'# s3# of { (# s4#, arr# #) ->
> > (# s4#, UArray l u arr# #) }}}}
> >
> > > Unreproducable bugs are rarely reported, but they do add to people's
> > > impression of how unstable a language/library is.
Stefan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
