Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[Caml-list] allocating memory for c-structures

2 views
Skip to first unread message

micha

unread,
Dec 26, 2006, 1:16:10 PM12/26/06
to OCaml Mailing List
Normaly I allocate memory for c-structures with malloc or with "new" for
c++ objects. Some time ago a read about a library which places external
structures in strings of the interfacing languages (it was a scheme lib
I think). So instead of using malloc or new I would allocate an
ocaml-string and put the c-structure there. So it will be free by the gc.
That seems o.k. for me, any comments? I'm missing something?

cheers
Michael

_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

EL CHAAR Rabih SGAM/AI/SAM

unread,
Dec 26, 2006, 1:33:55 PM12/26/06
to micha
The issue about having c structures allocated in ocaml heap is about:
1) having a floating pointer that could be displaced by the gc during its cycles (if it is emedded into ocaml heap)
2) having it reside in the c heap, and not be impacted by caml gc cycles (this can be justified if the c structure is heavy in memory, like a c array, ...): this is done by creating caml values with a custom or abstract tag.
3) memory freeing could always be done to a custom_tag value through the finalization function passed during the creation.

Hope this helps,
Rabih


-----Message d'origine-----
De : caml-lis...@yquem.inria.fr [mailto:caml-lis...@yquem.inria.fr] De la part de micha
Envoyé : mardi 26 décembre 2006 19:16
À : OCaml Mailing List
Objet : [Caml-list] allocating memory for c-structures

cheers
Michael

Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le "message") sont confidentiels et etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires.
Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisee est interdite.
Tout message electronique est susceptible d'alteration.
Societe Generale Asset Management et ses filiales declinent toute responsabilite au titre de ce message s'il a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie.

Decouvrez l'offre et les services de Societe Generale Asset Management sur le site www.sgam.fr

********

This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees.
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration.
Neither Societe Generale Asset Management nor any of its subsidiaries or affiliates shall be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.

Find out more about Societe Generale Asset Management's proposal on www.sgam.com

Richard Jones

unread,
Dec 26, 2006, 1:38:15 PM12/26/06
to micha
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 07:15:35PM +0100, micha wrote:
> Normaly I allocate memory for c-structures with malloc or with "new" for
> c++ objects. Some time ago a read about a library which places external
> structures in strings of the interfacing languages (it was a scheme lib
> I think). So instead of using malloc or new I would allocate an
> ocaml-string and put the c-structure there. So it will be free by the gc.
> That seems o.k. for me, any comments? I'm missing something?

That seems like it'll work for "opaque" C objects, but it's a bit of a
hack. The immediate issues I can think are:

(a) Pointers in the C code which point at the object will not be
"counted" by the GC, and so the object may be collected while there
are still C pointers around. This is easily avoided in OCaml, but
read chapter 18 of the manual carefully.

(b) By storing the object as a string you're telling the GC not to
examine the inside of the object, eg. looking for pointers inside to
other objects. Fine, if you know what you're doing, but OCaml already
has a number of established ways to do this - eg. using Abstract or
Custom blocks - and these standard ways are not just standard, but
offer additional features too. Alternatively you may consider a
non-abstract block and deliberately allow the GC to look inside. C
and OCaml structures are not actually too different.

Actually, while I was writing the above, it struck me that perhaps
you're talking about some sort of marshalling system? OCaml supports
its own marshalling format, and a rich variety of other external forms
of marshalling.

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, CTO Merjis Ltd.
Merjis - web marketing and technology - http://merjis.com
Internet Marketing and AdWords courses - http://merjis.com/courses - NEW!
Merjis blog - http://blog.merjis.com - NEW!

skaller

unread,
Dec 26, 2006, 1:40:15 PM12/26/06
to micha
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 19:15 +0100, micha wrote:
> Normaly I allocate memory for c-structures with malloc or with "new" for
> c++ objects. Some time ago a read about a library which places external
> structures in strings of the interfacing languages (it was a scheme lib
> I think). So instead of using malloc or new I would allocate an
> ocaml-string and put the c-structure there. So it will be free by the gc.
> That seems o.k. for me, any comments? I'm missing something?

I don't believe Ocaml guarantees the contents of a string
will remain in a fixed location .. it might move the storage
to a new address .. so pointers into the structure might
dangle.

--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net

micha

unread,
Dec 26, 2006, 1:55:12 PM12/26/06
to caml...@yquem.inria.fr
thanks for all the answers.

Richard Jones schrieb:


>
> That seems like it'll work for "opaque" C objects, but it's a bit of a
> hack. The immediate issues I can think are:
>
> (a) Pointers in the C code which point at the object will not be
> "counted" by the GC, and so the object may be collected while there
> are still C pointers around. This is easily avoided in OCaml, but
> read chapter 18 of the manual carefully.
>

that's true; for linked data structures it would not work (except all
would be allocated this way)


> Actually, while I was writing the above, it struck me that perhaps
> you're talking about some sort of marshalling system? OCaml supports
> its own marshalling format, and a rich variety of other external forms
> of marshalling.

ah no, I just thought that it would be another way to handle external
memory.
What I didn't realize was, that the gc moves pointers around...

cheers
Michael

0 new messages