From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E30BC6B for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:28:08 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAANKNS0fUnw7WiGdsb2JhbACCOY0FAQEBCAQGERiBDg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.23,219,1194217200"; d="scan'208";a="4967513" Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net ([212.159.14.214]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2007 12:28:08 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Iwybn-0005tx-Cc for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:28:07 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Floating exception Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:19:25 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <47471716.3020304@irisa.fr> <200711232236.39691.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <474BF061.2070604@lexifi.com> In-Reply-To: <474BF061.2070604@lexifi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711271119.26078.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 bindings:01 lablgl:01 bytecode:01 dependencies:01 ocaml:01 trivial:01 bindings:01 lablgtk:01 pulled:98 frog:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 compile:01 On Tuesday 27 November 2007 10:24, you wrote: > Jon Harrop a =C3=A9crit : > > Too many of our users found the binary generated by ocamlopt to be > > unusably unreliable, typically due to random segfaulting that we could > > not reproduce. > > Could you please elaborate ? There isn't really anything more that I can add. We wrote the OCaml the=20 obvious way (no unsafe code) and used the conventional bindings (LablGL) an= d=20 distributed the binary, only to find that too many people had reliability=20 problems for it to be a viable product so we pulled it. Now we're trying to give it away in bytecode form and even that is a major= =20 PITA because we need to install and compile against (including dependencies= )=20 several different minor-minor versions of OCaml just to garner enough=20 interest to find out (from the only person who has given us feedback having= =20 managed to compile it out of 75 downloads so far this month) that even thes= e=20 trivial demos don't work. My guess is that the glut libraries installed on these computers are causin= g=20 the problems. Perhaps we should write bindings to GLX or use LablGTK2 to=20 evade glut and see what happens but, of course, we cannot reproduce the=20 problem here and there are a huge number of variations we could try without= =20 having any real idea of what is going wrong. =2D-=20 Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e