From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <marco-oweber@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
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 D758181792
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:02:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  marco-oweber@gmx.de) identity=pra; client-ip=212.227.15.19;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="marco-oweber@gmx.de";
  x-sender="marco-oweber@gmx.de"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  marco-oweber@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=212.227.15.19;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="marco-oweber@gmx.de";
  x-sender="marco-oweber@gmx.de";
  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@mout.gmx.net) identity=helo;
  client-ip=212.227.15.19;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="marco-oweber@gmx.de";
  x-sender="postmaster@mout.gmx.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnQBANhsyFHU4w8TnGdsb2JhbABbhwirdZFDFg4BAQEBAQYNCQkUKIJNDwF7AhgOAhJNiA4BFpo9gzmLQ4d7AYkpgSaQf4EUA51zjiY
X-IPAS-Result: AnQBANhsyFHU4w8TnGdsb2JhbABbhwirdZFDFg4BAQEBAQYNCQkUKIJNDwF7AhgOAhJNiA4BFpo9gzmLQ4d7AYkpgSaQf4EUA51zjiY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,929,1363129200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="23142791"
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2013 18:02:54 +0200
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.16]) by mrigmx.server.lan
 (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MAiyD-1UyWwQ0J3b-00BpCc for
 <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:02:53 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2013 16:02:47 -0000
Received: from p5DD8C4BF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO mail.gmx.net) [93.216.196.191]
  by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 24 Jun 2013 18:02:47 +0200
X-Authenticated: #9006135
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/L1Joe8lLLtIAhC46tTJAmmmOolBHnkfSlsxSTQ1
	BJzhC7zupRA1rp
Received: by mail.gmx.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:03:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Marc Weber <marco-oweber@gmx.de>
To: caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:03:13 +0200
Message-Id: <1372089559-sup-2177@nixos>
User-Agent: Sup/git
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: [Caml-list] ocamlopt vs camlc, different behaviour - how to track
 down?

I'd like to find out why a ocamlc complied application behaves
differently than a ocamlopt compiled one.

Because "deriving show" for arbitrary data blocks is kind of hard
(it looks like derivig fails on parameterized types?) the next best
thing which comes to my mind is making each instruction trace its source
position. This way it should be easy to find out why ocamlopt result
behaves differently than ocamlc by diffing the traces.

Is there any starting point - such as a camlp4 post processor I could
use and adopt?

Marc Weber