From: David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com>
To: Timothy Bourke <Timothy.Bourke@inria.fr>,
"caml-list@inria.fr" <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] ocamlc 4.03 -> 4.04: change in meaning of -i
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:47:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E51C5B015DBD1348A1D85763337FB6D9014D462D9E@Remus.metastack.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170708140810.vpglvvttlfbflus4@xocuter.home>
Timothy Bourke wrote:
> Sent: 08 July 2017 15:08
> To: caml-list@inria.fr
> Subject: [Caml-list] ocamlc 4.03 -> 4.04: change in meaning of -i
>
> I just noticed a change in the behaviour of ocamlc that adversely
> affects a tool I maintain.
>
> In 4.03.0 (and earlier), the -i option only applies to the .ml files
> that follow it on the command line.
>
> In 4.04.0 (and later), the -i option applies to all .ml files on the
> command line.
>
> Is this change in behaviour intentional?
This behaviour is a consequence of GPR#464 (in particular https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/commit/4dc3efe) and intentional.
Prior to 4.04.0, at the point of processing a.ml in `ocamlc a.ml -i b.ml` the compiler assumes it is linking (since that is the default operation) and so generates a.cmo and a.cmi. Once it sees the `-i` it discovers that it's supposed to be dumping interfaces and so prints the interface of b.ml - this works because by fluke it compiled a.ml previously. Prior to 4.04.0, if instead you had run `ocamlc -i a.ml b.ml` (with no a.cmi built) you would have got the same error and the same output.
PR#6475/GPR#464 took the decision that the command line arguments should be fully interpreted before doing anything, hence in 4.04.0+ `ocamlc a.ml -i b.ml` and `ocamlc -i a.ml b.ml` are the same command and interpreted as the latter (the change is marked as breaking as a result).
HTH,
David
>
> Tim.
>
> Longer explanation
> ==================
>
> Given two files.
>
> a.ml:
> let f x = x + 1
>
> b.ml:
> open A
> let g x = f x
>
> 1. In 4.03.0 (and earlier), typing either
> ocamlc a.ml -i b.ml
> or
> ocamlc -c a.ml; ocamlc a.ml -i b.ml
>
> prints
> val g : int -> int
>
> and generates
> a.cmi
> a.cmo
>
> 2. In 4.04.0 (and later), typing
> ocamlc a.ml -i b.ml
>
> prints
> val f : int -> int
> File "b.ml", line 1, characters 5-6:
> Error: Unbound module A
>
> and does not generate anything.
>
> 3. In 4.04.0 (and later), typing
> ocamlc -c a.ml; ocamlc a.ml -i b.ml
>
> prints
> val f : int -> int
> val g : int -> int
>
> and generates
> a.cmi
> a.cmo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-09 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-08 14:08 Timothy Bourke
2017-07-09 9:47 ` David Allsopp [this message]
2017-07-09 15:00 ` Timothy Bourke
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=E51C5B015DBD1348A1D85763337FB6D9014D462D9E@Remus.metastack.local \
--to=dra-news@metastack.com \
--cc=Timothy.Bourke@inria.fr \
--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