On Sunday 03 February 2008 21:24:12 Alain Frisch wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > This raises several questions for me:
> >
> > . Is this even possible?
>
> Yes. How could it not be possible? Run your example through cpp, you'll
> get a ``self-contained'' C program that uses only functions exported
> from OCaml's runtime.

How does OCaml's stack walker work with C code, for example? In particular, 
how does it know what is a pointer into the heap from a C stack frame? Must 
it be explicitly disabled?

I assume local variables must be explicitly registered as global roots upon 
entry to each function and unregistered upon exit. If so, what are the 
performance implications of this?

I tried and failed to write such an example myself. Here's "forstr.ml":

let print_stat() =
  let stat = Gc.stat() in
  Printf.printf "%d minor collections\n%!" stat.Gc.minor_collections;
  Printf.printf "%d major collections\n%!" stat.Gc.major_collections;
  Gc.print_stat stdout
let _ = Callback.register "gc_print_stat" print_stat
let _ = Callback.register "gc_full_major" Gc.full_major

Here's "str.c":

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <caml/mlvalues.h>
#include <caml/alloc.h>
#include <caml/memory.h>
#include <caml/fail.h>
#include <caml/callback.h>
#include <caml/custom.h>
#include <caml/intext.h>

value *full_major, *print_stat;

CAMLprim value fib(value nv) {
  int64 n = Int64_val(nv);
  return (n < 2 ? nv : copy_int64(Int64_val(fib(copy_int64(n-1))) +
                                  Int64_val(fib(copy_int64(n-2)))));
}

int apply(int n) {
  return Int64_val(fib(copy_int64(n)));
}

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
  caml_main(argv);
  print_stat = caml_named_value("gc_print_stat");
  full_major = caml_named_value("full_major");
  printf("%d\n", apply(argc == 2 ? atoi(argv[1]) : 10));
  callback(*print_stat, 0);
  callback(*full_major, 0);
  callback(*print_stat, 0);
  return 0;
}

Compile and run with:

$ ocamlopt -dtypes -output-obj forstr.ml -o forstring.o && gcc -Wall -o test 
forstring.o str.c -L/usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.0 -lasmrun -ldl -lm && time ./test 30
832040
369 minor collections
0 major collections
Segmentation fault

real    0m0.361s
user    0m0.344s
sys     0m0.004s

So this is several times slower than native ocamlopt-generated code, as you 
might expect, but it doesn't work correctly because it segfaults when 
full_major is called to invoke the GC. How can I fix this example?

If I can get simple examples like this working as C code then it should be 
trivial to generate them using LLVM at which point you've got a mediocre 
compiler than can be built upon. I think a lot of people would be interested 
in that...

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e