[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: splitting ocaml-native-compilers

le ven 18-01-2002 à 10:55, Sven a écrit : 
> I would have to test the existance of the opt.opt files after the compile, to
> move the files only if they exist, or the build process will bomb on me.

You do not need to test whether they exist: try to move them and ignore
the error if there is any. Now, if you really want to test the existence
of some executable files, "test -x" is not so difficult to use.

> But then, the empty pseudo package to simplify a build dependency issue don't
> strike me as aesthetically elegant, and i have some doubts abotu it being the
> right way of doing this.
Difficult to agree on what The Right Thing is, but as for elegance, the
introduction of 0 in arithmetics solved many problems very elegantly;
mathematicians would not work without the emptyset, and shell
programmers find /bin/true and /bin/false very convenient; I would not
program in OCaml without the empty list. All these are very elegant
concepts. I do not understand why an empty package would not be elegant?

> When a new native code compiler gets available, most probably it will be for a
> new release of ocaml, and the library at least will need to be rebuilt.

Yes, but I guess the buildd will check that there is a Build-depends and
rebuilt automatically?

> Maybe
> even the apps, if things happen like the 3.04 case, and anyway, it is always
> best to rebuild with the current version of ocaml, especially if your program
> use dynamic linking of .cmo files and such.

I think you missed the point: there is no single "current version of
ocaml". There is the version of unstable, the one of testing, and the
one of stable. I want my package to compile on as much as versions as
possible (as for the current version of Coq, it cannot compile on stable
but it can compile on testing; in fact, I did not even needed to check
my package compiled on unstable: I know it will compile as it is ok on
testing and the upstream Coq has been ported to ocaml-3.04).

> Another idea would be for ocaml to provide ocaml-opt or whatever for the
> arches where there is no optimized compiler.

This might indeed be a good idea (it requires no more nor less work than
providing an empty package). Or even better: provide an ocaml-best
package in ocaml-native-compilers and provide this package when there is
no optimized compiler.


Judicael.Courant@lri.fr, http://www.lri.fr/~jcourant/
(+33) (0)1 69 15 64 85
"Heureux ceux qui savent rire d'eux-mêmes :
 ils n'ont pas fini de s'amuser !"

Reply to: