Re: Bug#600408: ocaml: Building OCaml with LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE enabled
On 16-10-2010, Guillaume Yziquel <guillaume.yziquel@citycable.ch> wrote:
> Le Sunday 17 Oct 2010 à 00:10:41 (+0200), Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
>> Le 16/10/2010 23:24, Guillaume Yziquel a écrit :
>> > Package: ocaml
>> > Version: 3.12.0-1~38
>> > Severity: normal
>>
>
>> > [...] and digging into
>> > the callbacks.c file, I discovered that OCaml in Debian is not built
>> > with the LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE macro enabled.
>>
>> Why should it be?
>
> To me, the question is "why shouldn't it be?".
>
[...]
>> > It seems to me that the current situation might be a can of worms and
>> > segfaults, and I'm wondering whether it would not be a good idea to
>> > build OCaml with LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE enabled.
>>
>> Where did you get that from? Is this LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE documented
>> somewhere? The only usage I see is in byterun/callback.c, and I don't
>> see why it should matter here (we are just using the standard bytecode
>> interpreter).
>
> Haven't found documentation on LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE anywhere. I'm
> stumbling on it doing painful gdb debugging.
>
> I do not think that the comments in callbacks.c are very enlightening as
> to the proper usage of LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE. I'm not saying that it
> should be changed, but I do not see why it should be kept this way.
>
The effect of this seems to be quite tricky and "maybe" not worth
using a different set of options than the default OCaml one. Since,
Debian packaging do nothing to disable this macro and that upstream
doesn't enable it or even document it, I am not sure it is a good idea
to change it in Debian.
This doesn't mean that this is not a problem and that it doesn't cause
segfault. I just think this issue should be dealt with upstream directly
so that he can integrate in OCaml 3.12.1 a sane default for this option.
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: