From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q3SID2rf002417
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:13:02 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqYDAGIxnE9KfVK2kGdsb2JhbABEgiAEeYJLrCkIIgEBAQEJCQ0HFAQjggkBAQEEEgIPHQEbHAEBAwwGBQsNAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECARERAQUBHAYNAQcBAR6HXAEDCwSaaQqLU1CCc4RHChknDVeIdgEFC4EkjluBGASVfoERhGWDZIUIPYQM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,497,1330902000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="141965923"
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 28 Apr 2012 20:12:57 +0200
Received: by weyt57 with SMTP id t57so1786800wey.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=pl3Un98aoJPNam7M4J5jmi2wiMyv76HvEZzE5mjmW5s=;
        b=Xs8PH6p6xkau9d481ZJpI7ulqxeFdS68NHfsIgBNptMJd6HkgjcKuRmG7+g9W4jh77
         eZCC1mF77Qt4dHFViAMaNyZpReVJQkiLqUhGTR7RNKMNX0eXnojc4SV/3nha7wuMyfjq
         hvEhOMLZSMJd3QWe+SaXAlH5Dd7rd0f0P2R5ZarkMFfe0yAJqEblOpR6wdinUz+8ByCa
         mUb11SHq380m+lk8RUYIiDAP/uQNVlbTHqkwVB7FEtSXlSItdRTTfySjAThLh8gMNtMH
         Rowr6et0BGaliWq7yT/7F9ZH/WknaQaF/DEZ0dRw5WrpEDzu0tFDWQqs6HG+YZ4bT+im
         QWfA==
Received: by 10.180.88.67 with SMTP id be3mr16004239wib.20.1335636776950;
        Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.27.6.175] ([213.106.240.92])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm14520598wiz.1.2012.04.28.11.12.55
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F9C3326.6010900@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:12:54 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWF0ZWogS2/FocOtaw==?=
 <5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Markus Mottl <markus.mottl@gmail.com>
CC: Caml List <caml-list@inria.fr>
References: <4F9AE39B.8010500@gmail.com> <CE03BFB3-8F84-4AA4-A536-48E8DAC0DF22@metastack.com> <4F9AE764.4060409@gmail.com> <CAP_800oybKMq2BrS5D-bAPaAxxDNzHdjv6obJ-0YS8jOyu1BUw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP_800oybKMq2BrS5D-bAPaAxxDNzHdjv6obJ-0YS8jOyu1BUw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocamlfind + sexplib + bin_io

On 04/27/2012 08:29 PM, Markus Mottl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> even the following should work if everything is installed correctly:
> 
>   ocamlfind ocamlc -linkpkg -package sexplib.syntax,bin_prot.syntax
> -syntax camlp4o main.ml

If I try this command, I get the same error:

	Camlp4: Uncaught exception: Not_found

	File "main.ml", line 1, characters 0-1:
	Error: Preprocessor error

Now, I am not sure what should be the conclusion.

I hesitate to claim that versions of (sexplib+bin_prot) libraries
published in GODI are faulty---if I do not use ocamlfind, I can use
those libraries just fine.

Do not you think that camlp4 is never expected (for any kind of input)
throw an exception? Are we sure that the reported steps do not simply
trigger a camlp4 bug?