]> Alain Frisch wrote: > I was proposing to have an intermediate code block (made of > CALL_DYN). Ah yes, I see it now. I didn't really understand your proposal fully in the beginning. And to be honest, I still am not sure of the actual implementation. I'll read it once more and probably ask some questions - I have yet another idea which might be what you mean as well, or then again it might not be - if you have the patience for me :-) > I have been considering this idea too, but I think it does'nt work: > sure, the GC won't free the code block, but it can still move it > without updating the code pointer in the closure. Maybe this can be > addressed by using a different GC tag to denote "movable" closures, > so that the GC knows that the code pointer has to be translated by > the same amount as the last slot (which is the pointer to the code > block). You are obviously right. I didn't even consider the GC moving the block. Well that's it for the cleanliness of that idea - if there needs to be a new block type or touching the GD, it's not really better than the other suggestions, except in a performance sense. -- Naked ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners