Bug#600408: ocaml: Building OCaml with LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE enabled
[Ce message a aussi été publié sur gmane.test.]
On 19-10-2010, Sylvain Le Gall <gildor@debian.org> wrote:
> Try to cc the bug as well as the mailing list (for the record).
>
> On 17-10-2010, Sylvain Le Gall <gildor@debian.org> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>> Archive: slrnibligp.fmh.gildor@gallu.homelinux.org">http://lists.debian.org/slrnibligp.fmh.gildor@gallu.homelinux.org
>>
>>
>
> Regards,
> Sylvain Le Gall
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: slrnibqn5c.nk3.gildor@gallu.homelinux.org">http://lists.debian.org/slrnibqn5c.nk3.gildor@gallu.homelinux.org
>
>
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: