From: Christian Lindig <lindig@ips.cs.tu-bs.de>
To: Caml Mailing List <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: ocamlopt and ocamldep
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 14:33:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <199809051233.OAA00550@infbsstq.ips.cs.tu-bs.de> (raw)
The ocamldep utility in OCaml 2.0 creates for a file concept.mli that
uses modules Bitrelation and Bitset a dependency of the following
form:
concept.cmi: bitrelation.cmo bitset.cmo
When compiling for native code this causes uncessessary recompilations
of the files bitrelation.ml and bitset.ml:
% make colibri.cmxa
ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c stat.mli
ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c stat.ml
--> ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c bitset.ml
--> ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c bitrelation.ml
ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c intcode.mli
ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c intcode.ml
==> ocamlc -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c bitset.ml
==> ocamlc -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c bitrelation.ml
--> ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c concept.mli
ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c concept.ml
ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c lattice.mli
ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c lattice.ml
ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -c context.ml
ocamlopt.opt -I ../libcolibri -I ../getopt -a -o colibri.cmxa
stat.cmx bitset.cmx bitrelation.cmx intcode.cmx concept.cmx
lattice.cmx context.cmx
bitset.ml and bitrelation are already compiled to *.cmx, *.cmi, and
*.o. Because of the dependency generated by ocamldep they get
recompiled using the *byte* code compiler and thus new *.cmi files are
created as well.
This does not matter in most cases since OCaml compiles very fast. I
suspect the recompilation to cause subtle 'inconsistent assumptions
over interface' errors in conjunction with -unsave -noassert compiler
flags. However, I was not able to find a small example for this mail
that reproduces the error.
Should cmi-files depend on cmx-files when compiling for native code?
This would avoid uneccessary recompilations but would also make
integrating byte code compilation and native code compilation into one
Makefile much harder.
-- Christian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Lindig http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/softech/people/lindig
mail: lindig@ips.cs.tu-bs.de
next reply other threads:[~1998-09-06 17:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-09-05 12:33 Christian Lindig [this message]
1998-09-11 17:09 ` Xavier Leroy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=199809051233.OAA00550@infbsstq.ips.cs.tu-bs.de \
--to=lindig@ips.cs.tu-bs.de \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox