Add closure-info field when reifying bytecode #9681
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
xavierleroy
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2020
This was referenced Jun 17, 2020
EduardoRFS
pushed a commit
to esy-ocaml/ocaml
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2021
sadiqj
pushed a commit
to sadiqj/ocaml
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 10, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In
caml_reify_bytecodea block with aClosure_tagand of size 1 is allocated. This patch adds the closure-info field that I think was missed in PR#9619.Right now this code in the major GC ends up reading the header of the next object to work out arity. This trips the assert when the testsuite is built with no naked pointers.