From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D9B27FB5D for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 15:03:45 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of r.vermeulen@vu.nl) identity=pra; client-ip=130.37.164.19; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="r.vermeulen@vu.nl"; x-sender="r.vermeulen@vu.nl"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of r.vermeulen@vu.nl designates 130.37.164.19 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=130.37.164.19; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="r.vermeulen@vu.nl"; x-sender="r.vermeulen@vu.nl"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mailin.vu.nl) identity=helo; client-ip=130.37.164.19; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="r.vermeulen@vu.nl"; x-sender="postmaster@mailin.vu.nl"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlUAAPWjplSCJaQTnGdsb2JhbABcg1hYBIMBwyeHAhYBAQEBAREBAQEBAQgLCQkULoQ2gQsCJgJJFog/nQWPRJQMIIEhjnOCUi6BEwWRVIs4i0yBc4IeboFFfgEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: AlUAAPWjplSCJaQTnGdsb2JhbABcg1hYBIMBwyeHAhYBAQEBAREBAQEBAQgLCQkULoQ2gQsCJgJJFog/nQWPRJQMIIEhjnOCUi6BEwWRVIs4i0yBc4IeboFFfgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,684,1413237600"; d="scan'208";a="115431297" Received: from mailin.vu.nl ([130.37.164.19]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 02 Jan 2015 15:03:44 +0100 Received: from PEXHB011A.vu.local (130.37.236.64) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 15:03:43 +0100 Received: from [10.0.0.5] (130.37.253.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 15:03:43 +0100 From: Remco Vermeulen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <1088B954-0D62-47D9-B727-2ADE38DD3949@vu.nl> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 15:03:43 +0100 To: MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) X-Originating-IP: [130.37.253.20] Subject: [Caml-list] ocamldep & compilation units Hi, I=E2=80=99m kind of stuck on the following situation. foo.ml: ... module BAR =3D struct =E2=80=A6 let x () =3D ... end ... end bar.ml: =E2=80=A6 let y () =3D =E2=80=A6 baz.ml: open Foo ... BAR.x () =E2=80=A6 Bar.y () ocamldep -modules baz.ml, as used by Omake, returns baz.ml: BAR bar. The manual of ocamldep states that the -modules option returns the compilat= ion units referenced in the source file. But shouldn=E2=80=99t, in this situation, only Bar be a compilation unit? In the current situation, Omake adds the compilation unit BAR to the depend= encies of baz.cm(o|x), meaning that it will search for the file bAR.ml to satisfy the dependency. This has the unfortunate effect of using bar.ml on a case-insensitive files= ystem (the default on OSX) resulting in the error: "Wrong file naming: bar.cmi contains the compiled interface for Bar when BA= R was expected=E2=80=9D So my question is. is BAR in the above example correctly identified as a co= mpilation unit by ocamldep? Cheers, Remco=20=