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 QAA27043; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:27:33 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 QAA26782 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:27:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f8IERUr15515; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:27:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA26903; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:27:30 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:27:30 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: Markus Mottl Cc: OCAML Subject: Re: [Caml-list] byte-code and -fno-defer-pop Message-ID: <20010918162730.J23689@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20010917155545.A23056@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010917155545.A23056@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at>; from markus@mail4.ai.univie.ac.at on Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 03:55:45PM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > C-files in the OCaml-distribution are usually compiled with -fno-defer-pop > when they are supposed to be used with byte code, too. What is the > rationale behind? There used to be a bug in gcc whereas code using computed gotos (such as the OCaml bytecode interpreter) would be incorrectly compiled unless the -fno-defer-pop option is given. I don't know if this has been fixed in recent versions of gcc. At any rate, you're correct that -fno-defer-pop is needed only for compiling byterun/interp.c, and applying it to all bytecode-related C files is a bit excessive. > Is this only intended to limit stack growth a bit or > are there other reasons? This opposite of this option is normally turned > on when optimisation (-O) is used. Would you recommend this setting > generally for C-code that should cooperate with OCaml-byte code? No, it shouldn't be necessary. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr