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 concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463ADBC6B for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:16:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.198.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1EAGBDg029141 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:16:13 +0100 Received: (qmail 29408 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2007 10:16:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (rftp@pacbell.net@69.230.182.109 with plain) by smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2007 10:16:10 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 2chb2woVM1nITtLFDgSEczPR9ZBlkVVNBkV16XFEdd.qQ1yiH8AADbk_feILYjQZvw1VO7WP1KlIwcpxOMhJafaI7qRdrz5w3ixVGatJbEHWjgvusFT8.auj0.oUBYdW1Nb80Y2jw7P7yLg- Message-ID: <45D2E15A.8010700@rftp.com> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:15:54 -0800 From: Robert Roessler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a3pre) Gecko/20070209 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 SeaMonkey/1.5a MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocamlc vs ocamlc.opt? References: <45C11557.10704@rftp.com> <95513600702010017y2f4ab9eex18b2fa3a52c987e@mail.gmail.com> <45D25864.2050307@rftp.com> In-Reply-To: <45D25864.2050307@rftp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45D2E16B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlc:01 ocamlc:01 bytecode:01 compiler:01 ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 cmo:01 cmi:01 hashes:01 gcc:01 bytecode:01 pulled:98 cvs:01 wrote:01 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