Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
ocaml+twt v0.90
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Yaron Minsky <yminsky@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] marshaling limits
Don't quote me on this, but I believe that marshal uses a string in bytecode
with threads, uses straight malloc with bytecode and no threads, and never
uses strings in native code.  I'm /very/ unsure about that last one, but I
am pretty confident that in some cases, whether it uses strings depends on
whether threads are involved.


On 1/17/07, Sebastien Ferre <> wrote:
> Daniel Bünzli wrote:
> >> pourtant, je passe bien par un appel a output_value
> >> dans un fichier, sans passer par une chaine intermediaire.
> >
> > Maybe output_value uses a string internally. Try with a bytecode
> > version of your executable, an exception should be raised (or have a
> > look at the implementaiton of output_value).
> I used a bytecode version.
> I checked the code of output_value, and it uses an internal
> string. So it won't work.
> Anyway, I knew I would have to go for a more serious
> solution as soon as data get really large. I think of
> using something like GDBM.
> Thanks for the help.
> Sebastien
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> Archives:
> Beginner's list:
> Bug reports: