From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA16080; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:37:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA16236 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:37:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from hod.void.org (pD9548827.dip.t-dialin.net [217.84.136.39]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g2BCb3107436 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:37:03 +0100 (MET) Received: (from mamous@localhost) by hod.void.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23533; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:36:30 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: hod.void.org: mamous set sender to leypold@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de using -f From: "M E Leypold @ labnet" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15500.42189.563370.819377@hod.void.org> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:36:29 +0100 To: Franck Delaplace Cc: OCAML Subject: [Caml-list] Problem with ocamlopt In-Reply-To: <3C8C620F.6080801@lami.univ-evry.fr> References: <3C8C620F.6080801@lami.univ-evry.fr> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.4.1 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Franck Delaplace writes: > > When I try to compile a program with ocamlopt, > the following exception is raised > > Uncaught exception: Stack overflow > PS: You will find attached the source code When trying to read it, one of my brain modules threw an exception: Stack overflow. :-) Hi Franck, Actually I only wrote to make that joke, but to be a bit more useful: It might be that the constructs used by the code generator you used to translate the FA definitions into ocaml nest somewhat too deeply, and since the ocamlcompiler parses recursive descendend (i think) its stack overflows at some point or other. Suggestions: * Try cutting down your FA, let's say to half as a test case and compile it then. Does it overflow still? If no, try to make your FA smaller and keep functionality. * Report a problem/bug to the tagcc people and use ocamlc in the meantime waiting for a bug fix. If things are like I suggest, that is should be called a tagcc bug, since there is IMHO no reason for FA execution to use nested constructs this way (nesting too deeply). Regards -- Markus ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners