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 EAA17015; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 04:46:21 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA16894 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 04:46:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9G2kID19448 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 04:46:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (suiren.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id LAA02391; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:46:10 +0900 (JST) To: Frederic.Tronel@inrialpes.fr Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Problem with ocamlc and recursive and parametrized classes In-Reply-To: <3DAAA5BF.9010901@inrialpes.fr> References: <3DAAA035.6020809@inrialpes.fr> <3DAAA5BF.9010901@inrialpes.fr> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20021016114610F.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:46:10 +0900 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: Frederic Tronel > I reply to myself, since it seems I was too prompt to post on the list. > In fact after an ultimate try and few hundred megabytes of memory later, > ocamlc.opt was able to produce the code. > Sorry for the previous post. Is there any plan to improve the behaviour > of the compiler in the future ? (if possible of course). Any "unexpected" behaviour of the compiler can be seen as a bug, so yes, if we understand what the problem is, it should be solved. Or at least we could define workarounds to avoid stretching the compiler's ability too much. I believed that most problems with efficiency were already solved in 3.06, but you might have found a new one. Please write a bug report. By the way several infinite loops were solved since 3.06, but this doesn't seem to be your problem. Jacques Garrigue ------------------- 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