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 NAA21352; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:08:52 +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 NAA19376 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:08:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ebene.inrialpes.fr (ebene.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.70]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9EB8pD27626 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:08:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from noyer.inrialpes.fr (noyer.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.68]) by ebene.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9EB8no05033 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:08:49 +0200 (MEST) Received: from inrialpes.fr (adret.inrialpes.fr [194.199.23.65]) by noyer.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.3/ImagV2) with ESMTP id g9EB8pU27120 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:08:51 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <3DAAA5BF.9010901@inrialpes.fr> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:08:47 +0200 From: Frederic Tronel User-Agent: Netscape X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Problem with ocamlc and recursive and parametrized classes References: <3DAAA035.6020809@inrialpes.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Frederic Tronel wrote: > Hi, > > I'm using ocaml version 3.06 for a industrial project. > I'm facing a well-known problem I think, that is related to > the use of recursive and parametrized classes. > Actually, adding a single line of code in one of my class generates > a hang up in the compilation process. The incriminated code is much too > long to be posted on the list, and I'm not able to reproduce the > phenomenon on smallest examples. But basically ocamlc seems to run in an > long loop consuming more and more memory. After two or three minutes and > more than 150Mo consumed, I stop the process. > Should I try to insist (is there any warranty on the finiteness of the > compilation ?), should I try to simplify my code (not really possible at > this point of the project). Is there any undocumented option of the > compiler that could help track the problem ? > > Thanks for any clue to solve this "embarassing" problem. > > Best regards, > > > Frederic. > 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). Frederic. ------------------- 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