From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C17BBAF for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:30:16 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am4BACqN/UzB/BfWlGdsb2JhbACjUAEBAgkLEREDH4gtuDuFSQSKcYMT X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,310,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="82163326" Received: from msa05.smtpout.orange.fr (HELO msa.smtpout.orange.fr) ([193.252.23.214]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2010 10:30:16 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.63] ([83.199.119.237]) by mwinf5d20 with ME id g9WE1f00Q57QgZP039WE82; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:30:15 +0100 Message-ID: <4CFDFEA5.3000900@frisch.fr> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:30:13 +0100 From: Alain Frisch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sylvain Le Gall Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Pre-compiled ocaml binary for windows References: <20101203200646.GA7445@malaquias.DHCP-GERAL> <6C7D3CF0-5C04-4E51-939F-5086244DA055@inria.fr> <4CFD2259.6060200@gmail.com> <4CFDEE7E.8030000@frisch.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; frisch:01 frisch:01 pre-compiled:01 ocaml:01 ocamlopt:01 toolchain:01 masm:01 masm:01 fwiw:01 compiler:01 lexifi's:01 ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 runtime:01 labltk:01 On 12/07/2010 10:03 AM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: > We will provide ocamlopt (32/64 bits). But indeed, the toolchain can be > an issue (esp. masm). I plan to use VS2008. I don't think MASM is going to be an issue. FWIW, the Windows 7 SDK (which has nothing to do with Windows 7) contains everything needed (including the VS2008 C compiler, the assembler, the linker, the libraries, etc). > Maybe the native Lexifi's amd64/x86 backend is a better option. If we > are able to use this backend, we still have to use a linker ? This native backend removes the need for an external assembler for using ocamlopt. Flexdll has a standalone mode to build DLLs which works fine to build pure OCaml .cmxs plugins for ocamlopt (there might be some issues when linking C libraries in the cmxs). But yes, to build the main program, you still need an external linker (this could be addressed by working more on flexdll) and also static runtime objects and libraries. An option could be to ship a minimalistic main program, which simply dynlinks .cmxs files given on its command line. >> Not building labltk seems ok. As for the graphical toplevel, I think >> there are some pending bugs (random crashes) with the current version >> under recent versions of Windows, so it's probably better not to include >> it. Some support for installing the emacs mode automatically and/or a >> version of ledit would be useful replacements. >> > > I didn't known this fact. This is another reason for not building > labltk. Since I almost never use it, I don't think it will be a big > loose. The graphical toplevel does not depend on labltk, so the two issues are really unrelated. For crashes with the OCamlWin.exe, I was thinking about http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4399 and http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=3052, but this might be pure FUD. The real problem is that nobody seems interested enough in this graphical toplevel to put serious work on it. > I will probably look for ledit (or lwt toplevel) which seems a better > alternative to emacs (too heavy too install). If your hope is to make OCaml accessible to beginner hobbyists under Windows (I assume this is the primary audience for pre-compiled binaries), you might still want to provide easy ways to use code editors. Providing easy access only to the toplevel (be it graphical, or with a line-editor) might be a turnoff for beginners. -- Alain