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=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F156ABBC4 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:39:07 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsMCAIvj0UmG1L4Ej2dsb2JhbACBU5QwAQEBAQkLCBq3W4N6Bg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,431,1233529200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="26731935" Received: from briaree.onecert.fr ([134.212.190.4]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2009 18:39:07 +0200 Received: from neree.onecert.fr (thetis.onecert.fr [134.212.178.12]) by briaree.onecert.fr (8.14.1/8.14.1/ONERA-SRI) with ESMTP id n2VGcZTQ023904; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:38:35 +0200 Received: from neree.onecert.fr (thetis.antiviral [127.0.0.1]) by neree.onecert.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ONERA-SRI) with ESMTP id n2VGcZ70005237; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:38:35 +0200 Received: from laios.cert.fr (laios.cert.fr [134.212.230.128]) by neree.onecert.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ONERA-SRI) with ESMTP id n2VGcZvU005232; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:38:35 +0200 Received: from [134.212.230.42] (castres [134.212.230.42]) by laios.cert.fr (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id n2VGcY118744; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:38:34 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <49D2470A.8080405@onera.fr> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:38:34 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pierre-Lo=EFc_Garoche?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081120) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alain Frisch Cc: thirioux@enseeiht.fr, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Dynamic loading of native code : what about librairies and packs ? References: <49D243B0.6020103@onera.fr> <49D24603.7060509@frisch.fr> In-Reply-To: <49D24603.7060509@frisch.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigF2558519F2DD1C32D8BC8683" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (briaree.onecert.fr [134.212.190.4]); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:38:35 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam: no; 0.00; librairies:01 orthogonal:01 -pack:01 -for-pack:01 -pack:01 -shared:01 -output-obj:01 cmx:01 overlap:01 dynamically:01 caml-list:01 modules:02 native:03 module:03 dynamic:03 X-Attachments: type="application/pgp-signature" name="signature.asc" name="signature.asc" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigF2558519F2DD1C32D8BC8683 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> ** Second: how about packs ? >=20 > As far as I can tell, packing and creating cmxs files are orthogonal > features: they don't overlap and they don't have bad interactions. It i= s > ok to put in cmxs files a module produced by -pack. I think it is also > ok to put modules compiled with -for-pack, but I don't see why you woul= d > do that. According to the manual, "The options -pack, -a, -shared, -c and -output-obj are mutually exclusiv= e." Do you suggest to create a first cmx pack and then make it dynamically loadable ? Regards, pl --=20 Pierre-Lo=EFc Garoche pierre-loic.garoche@onera.fr http://www.onera.fr/staff/pierre-loic-garoche/ --------------enigF2558519F2DD1C32D8BC8683 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJ0kcKR86freTiNRgRAll1AJ4ob82w/vYCBYWExEnlUQgEXL49lgCguOlU +vj2ihO1+xg+rz1vHzKKOyE= =cIZs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigF2558519F2DD1C32D8BC8683--