ocamlc vs ocamlc.opt?

ocamlc vs ocamlc.opt?

[Robert Roessler]

I just ran into a problem where building a bytecode executable failed 
with findlib ("ocamlfind ocamlc ...") but the equivalent non-findlib 
command worked.  Then I saw that I could force the same error message 
in my non-findlib build by just matching findlib's ocamlc.opt, while I 
had used ocamlc.

The command line is:
ocamlc -o bait -I +lablgtk2 -I +lablscintilla -thread threads.cma 
lablgtk.cma gtkInit.cmo scintilla.cma bait.ml

which works fine.  Changing ocamlc to ocamlc.opt yields:
Error on dynamically loaded library: 
/usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs/dlllablscintilla.so: undefined symbol: 
caml_names_of_builtin_cprim

This is on FC6, with a Yum-installed OCaml 3.09.3 package.  Both of 
the versions of the compiler identify themselves as 3.09.3 with the 
same standard library location, and both were built on Dec 2 of 2006.

So should the versions of ocamlc behave the same excepting performance 
issues, or ?

Robert Roessler
roessler@rftp.com
http://www.rftp.com

Re: [Caml-list] ocamlc vs ocamlc.opt?

[Aleksey Nogin]

On 31.01.2007 14:16, Robert Roessler wrote:

> I just ran into a problem where building a bytecode executable failed 
> with findlib ("ocamlfind ocamlc ...") but the equivalent non-findlib 
> command worked.  Then I saw that I could force the same error message in 
> my non-findlib build by just matching findlib's ocamlc.opt, while I had 
> used ocamlc.
> 
> The command line is:
> ocamlc -o bait -I +lablgtk2 -I +lablscintilla -thread threads.cma 
> lablgtk.cma gtkInit.cmo scintilla.cma bait.ml
> 
> which works fine.  Changing ocamlc to ocamlc.opt yields:
> Error on dynamically loaded library: 
> /usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs/dlllablscintilla.so: undefined symbol: 
> caml_names_of_builtin_cprim
> 
> This is on FC6, with a Yum-installed OCaml 3.09.3 package.  Both of the 
> versions of the compiler identify themselves as 3.09.3 with the same 
> standard library location, and both were built on Dec 2 of 2006.
>
It's possible that there was some problem with how it was compiled. Feel 
free to try my RPM from 
http://rpm.nogin.org/MetaPRL/fc6/ocaml-3.09.3-1.rhfc6.i386.html (you 
should be able to use http://rpmbin.nogin.org/MetaPRL/fedora-6/ in yum, 
with http://rpmbin.nogin.org/GPG-PUBKEY.txt key, if you prefer 
installing via yum).

  Aleksey

Re: [Caml-list] ocamlc vs ocamlc.opt?

[Robert Roessler]

Aleksey Nogin wrote:
> On 31.01.2007 14:16, Robert Roessler wrote:
> 
>> I just ran into a problem where building a bytecode executable failed 
>> with findlib ("ocamlfind ocamlc ...") but the equivalent non-findlib 
>> command worked.  Then I saw that I could force the same error message 
>> in my non-findlib build by just matching findlib's ocamlc.opt, while I 
>> had used ocamlc.
>>
>> The command line is:
>> ocamlc -o bait -I +lablgtk2 -I +lablscintilla -thread threads.cma 
>> lablgtk.cma gtkInit.cmo scintilla.cma bait.ml
>>
>> which works fine.  Changing ocamlc to ocamlc.opt yields:
>> Error on dynamically loaded library: 
>> /usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs/dlllablscintilla.so: undefined symbol: 
>> caml_names_of_builtin_cprim
>>
>> This is on FC6, with a Yum-installed OCaml 3.09.3 package.  Both of 
>> the versions of the compiler identify themselves as 3.09.3 with the 
>> same standard library location, and both were built on Dec 2 of 2006.
>>
> It's possible that there was some problem with how it was compiled. Feel 
> free to try my RPM from 
> http://rpm.nogin.org/MetaPRL/fc6/ocaml-3.09.3-1.rhfc6.i386.html (you 
> should be able to use http://rpmbin.nogin.org/MetaPRL/fedora-6/ in yum, 
> with http://rpmbin.nogin.org/GPG-PUBKEY.txt key, if you prefer 
> installing via yum).

Thanks - that is actually what I have been working on doing (I was 
trying to get this far so I had something to reply to Olivier's and 
now your suggestion)... ;)

Your package is the "gold standard" for Linux builds of OCaml, AFAICT.

But things are not quite as smooth as they could be - since Zod comes 
with all this Yum[my goodness], I was trying to stick with it... which 
is why I had it go ahead and install the "3.09.3" packages it said it 
had in its repo, along with the offered lablgtk (I removed both of these).

Next I had difficulties with the key file you suggest, when I tried to 
  do an "rpm --install" with the key file... rpm would just appear to 
hang with the key file as an argument after the --install.

So I just said (^*%^^%%^ and did an rpm -iv with your rpm sitting 
around locally, which worked fine.  Of course, Yum now shows it as 
being installed, but is unable to reinstall lablgtk because it says 
that it is unable to satisfy the "3.09.3" requirement.  Sigh.

So much for the brave new world of automated package management.  I 
will just go ahead now and do a source build of lablgtk, which I know 
to be easy (at least on Windows). ;)

Robert Roessler
roessler@rftp.com
http://www.rftp.com

Re: [Caml-list] ocamlc vs ocamlc.opt?

[Robert Roessler]

Olivier Andrieu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 1/31/07, Robert Roessler <roessler@rftp.com> wrote:
>> I just ran into a problem where building a bytecode executable failed
>> with findlib ("ocamlfind ocamlc ...") but the equivalent non-findlib
>> command worked.  Then I saw that I could force the same error message
>> in my non-findlib build by just matching findlib's ocamlc.opt, while I
>> had used ocamlc.
>>
>> The command line is:
>> ocamlc -o bait -I +lablgtk2 -I +lablscintilla -thread threads.cma
>> lablgtk.cma gtkInit.cmo scintilla.cma bait.ml
>>
>> which works fine.  Changing ocamlc to ocamlc.opt yields:
>> Error on dynamically loaded library:
>> /usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs/dlllablscintilla.so: undefined symbol:
>> caml_names_of_builtin_cprim
>>
>> This is on FC6, with a Yum-installed OCaml 3.09.3 package.  Both of
>> the versions of the compiler identify themselves as 3.09.3 with the
>> same standard library location, and both were built on Dec 2 of 2006.
> 
> It might be an issue with the RPM packaging process : it must be
> stripping an executable or a .so where it shouldn't.
> 
> You should try with a manually compiled ocaml.

All right.  After getting back to this, I

1. removed all yum packages and rpms that were caml-related
2. built ocaml 3.09.3 from source - NO weirdness or errors
3. built lablgtk2 (September snapshot) from source - NO errors
4. built lablscintilla-0.9pre1 from source - NO errors

I am STILL getting

"Error on dynamically loaded library: 
/usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs/dlllablscintilla.so: undefined symbol: 
caml_names_of_builtin_cprim"

if I use ocamlc.opt instead of ocamlc when I execute my compile

ocamlc -o bait -I +lablgtk2 -I +lablscintilla -thread threads.cma 
lablgtk.cma gtkInit.cmo scintilla.cma bait.ml

ocamlc functions flawlessly, ocamlc.opt yields the above error.

Given "Compatibility with the bytecode compiler is extremely high: the 
same source code should run identically when compiled with ocamlc and 
ocamlopt." in Chapter 11 of the OCaml manual, I am really not 
expecting ocamlc and ocamlc.opt to function any differently.  Choosing 
either of the commands from a cleanly built OCaml installation should 
be a matter of taste or personal preference, NOT correctness.

What could be (or is likely to) be going wrong?  Is it related to the 
gcc 4.11?  I will note that I had difficulties with doing a source 
build of lablgtk2 WITH Aleksey Nogin's RPM of OCaml for FC6 (funny 
errors about "deprecated -mcpu switches)... but all of these went away 
after doing a local full build of OCaml 3.09.3.

Robert Roessler
roessler@rftp.com
http://www.rftp.com

Re: [Caml-list] ocamlc vs ocamlc.opt?

[Robert Roessler]

Robert Roessler wrote:
> ...
> Given "Compatibility with the bytecode compiler is extremely high: the 
> same source code should run identically when compiled with ocamlc and 
> ocamlopt." in Chapter 11 of the OCaml manual, I am really not expecting 
> ocamlc and ocamlc.opt to function any differently.  Choosing either of 
> the commands from a cleanly built OCaml installation should be a matter 
> of taste or personal preference, NOT correctness.

I performed further tests and gathered more data on this.  I verified 
that the cmo and cmi files produced by the two versions of ocamlc are 
identical - they are (well, at least their md5 hashes are).  So this 
would suggest that it is not the COMPILE portions of the two ocamlc 
versions that are causing this - which leaves how the BYTECODE-mode 
executable is produced.

Covering even more bases, I pulled the CVS version of the OCaml source 
tree and built it on the target FC6/gcc 4.1.1 box... NO change.

Again, what IS the difference in operation between the two versions of 
ocamlc, one built as a BYTECODE executable, the other built NATIVE?

Robert Roessler
roessler@rftp.com
http://www.rftp.com