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 KAA24136; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:59:50 +0100 (MET) 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 KAA24098 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:59:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.44.193]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBL9xhr25079 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:59:48 +0100 (MET) Received: (from luther@localhost) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19502; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:00:25 +0100 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:00:25 +0100 From: Sven To: William Chesters Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Segv while compiling ocaml-3.04 Message-ID: <20011221110025.A19310@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> References: <3C19BAB4.13372263@univ-savoie.fr> <20011220115014.B5544@pauillac.inria.fr> <86u1ul5wya.fsf@speakeasy.org> <20011221092252.B6254@hars> <15395.32.822225.243126@beertje.william.bogus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <15395.32.822225.243126@beertje.william.bogus>; from williamc@paneris.org on Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 10:25:52AM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 10:25:52AM +0100, William Chesters wrote: > Florian Hars writes: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:49:17PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > > Is it worth polluting the source for the sake of an out-and-out vendor > > > bug? I'd say no. > > > > There is a clean solution to this problem, as implemented in the > > configure-script of mplayer [...] > > > > if test "$cc_verc_fail" ; then > > cat < > > > *** Please downgrade/upgrade C compiler to gcc-2.95.x or gcc-3.x version! *** > > > > GCC 2.96 IS NOT AND WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED BY US ! > > EOF > > die "Bad gcc version" > > Luckily the ocaml team are much too sensible to go this way. For > those who are tempted, take a look at > > http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/1214.mplayer.html > > "... boorish developers who think of themselves as a sort of > intellectual jeunesse doree ... The attitude I mentioned earlier was > noticeable in the comments on the project's page at freshmeat, ... in > the MPlayer team's remarks about gcc 2.96 ... Actually, the team's > infamous anti-Red Hat rhetoric has been toned down slightly. At Red > Hat's request, some false statements the developers made about 2.96 > have been removed from MPlayer's Web site. The team still lets you > know at every opportunity what they think of Red Hat, which gets > tiresome fast." > > Basically this approach is absolutely guaranteed to give the > impression that you are over-fussy, arrogant, inconsiderate of real > users' needs etc. RedHat is too big to ignore and get away with it: > every time they pull some stunt like this, lots of developers waste > lots of time and credibility attempting to convince users that it's > All Red Hat's Fault---eventually succeeding only to discover that the > users still blame them not RH. But i remember something similar about gcc 2.7.x or at least one of them that didn't work well with ocaml back then (96-97 time frame i think). There was just a small test in the configure script and if it detected a not working gcc, there was a notice of problems with it and it just stopped. You may very well be able to say the same thing in a more milder way, and it would not cause any kind of problem, i think. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- 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