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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BDB9BBCA for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:11:12 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArQBAE6BCEhQRFuwiGdsb2JhbACRYwEBAQ8mmgI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,678,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="9747087" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2008 20:11:11 +0200 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Jmv3G-0007Tj-Et; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:11:10 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:11:10 +0100 To: Vladimir Shabanov Cc: Joel Reymont , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] cross-compliation from x86 linux to windows? Message-ID: <20080418181110.GA28330@annexia.org> References: <8ef825670804180652j7873643aybda7998477b5bb35@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8ef825670804180652j7873643aybda7998477b5bb35@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Richard Jones X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlc:01 ocamlopt:01 -output-obj:01 bytecode:01 cmo:01 ocamlc:01 dynlink:01 wrote:01 unix:01 caml-list:01 cma:01 reuse:01 reuse:01 modules:02 output:02 On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 05:52:35PM +0400, Vladimir Shabanov wrote: > 2008/4/15, Joel Reymont : > > Is it possible to reuse on Windows the output > > from ocamlc/ocamlopt -output-obj? > > I think you can reuse pure bytecode (.cmo .cma w/o C objects) on > different platforms using ocamlc for static linking or Dynlink for > dynamic one. It used to be the case that this wouldn't work if the modules used the Unix module (because the implementation of that module is different on Un*x and non-Un*x-like operating systems). Haven't tried recently though. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat