From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 06BC081792 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 03:55:11 +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=212.227.15.18; 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 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=212.227.15.18; 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=212.227.15.18; 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: Ai8CANq93FHU4w8SlGdsb2JhbABahxCtUpA5gRMWDgEBAQEHCwsJEiqCJAEFIw8BVgsaAhgBDQICEEcGiA8BFp0ni0SHeAGJKIEmjkyCVoEeA5QBigWOKg X-IPAS-Result: Ai8CANq93FHU4w8SlGdsb2JhbABahxCtUpA5gRMWDgEBAQEHCwsJEiqCJAEFIw8BVgsaAhgBDQICEEcGiA8BFp0ni0SHeAGJKIEmjkyCVoEeA5QBigWOKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1032,1363129200"; d="scan'208";a="25298939" Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2013 03:55:10 +0200 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([87.164.97.91]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MLS74-1UxHaR0Hqc-000Z5r for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 03:55:10 +0200 Received: by mail.gmx.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:56:14 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Marc Weber To: caml-list In-reply-to: <1372089559-sup-2177@nixos> References: <1372089559-sup-2177@nixos> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 03:56:13 +0200 Message-Id: <1373421355-sup-9886@nixos> User-Agent: Sup/git Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:KxpoECpoLubZ4ZplUCQgMVZCIQEKx2640v/iovJTiCzBKxExM5A 9man/NLgOgJFWWlYl+vA5Y3BBKhOCZq1tE9IJxLwSxzTxnc/YIB0PdsZPoPAoztinuITalH ogUXFdmBUYu279Z+Dx3wsGRGMAaYMVNO/n//A1YIVcvbKG3a20xq4emyW6Aey04nQph3phl PbuZ7BO31vsNxbr44mMsw== Subject: [Caml-list] Re: ocamlopt vs camlc, different behaviour - how to track down? It turned out to be a evaluation order problem of a tuple. Marc Weber