[Caml-list] Problem of compilation with ocamlopt

[Caml-list] Problem of compilation with ocamlopt

[Olivier.Baldellon]

I made some code wich compil without any problem with ocamlc.
When I try to compil with ocamlopt on a first computer where the version
of ocamlopt 3.09.1 I have the following message:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[obaldellon@genocluster-data src]$ ocamlopt -c acide_amine.ml
/tmp/camlasmbebd73.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/camlasmbebd73.s:1274: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
/tmp/camlasmbebd73.s:1280: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
...
/tmp/camlasmbebd73.s:1547: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
/tmp/camlasmbebd73.s:1553: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
Assembler error, input left in file /tmp/camlasmbebd73.s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



But when I try to compil whith the second computer where the version of
ocamlopt is version 3.07+2, I don't have any problem with
[obaldellon@genocluster-data src]$ ocamlopt -c acide_amine.ml
but with :

----------------------------------------------------------------------
bash-3.00$ ocamlopt object.cmxa io.cmxa generate_lp_position.cmx -o
../bin/generate_lp_position_OPT
/usr/local/lib/ocaml/libasmrun.a(str.o)(.text+0x2e8): In function
`is_printable':
: undefined reference to `__ctype_b'
collect2: ld a retourné 1 code d'état d'exécution
Error during linking
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what I have to do to solve this two problems.
Thanks for your help.

Re: [Caml-list] Problem of compilation with ocamlopt

[Xavier Leroy]

> I made some code wich compil without any problem with ocamlc.
> When I try to compil with ocamlopt on a first computer where the version
> of ocamlopt 3.09.1 I have the following message:

Please submit a proper bug report on the bug tracking system,
including code that reproduces the issue.  Make sure to mention the OS
and the architecture (x86 or x86-64).  I'll look into it.

- Xavier Leroy