From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <steph@glondu.net>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C51181792
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:45:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  steph@glondu.net) identity=pra; client-ip=138.231.136.39;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="steph@glondu.net";
  x-sender="steph@glondu.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  steph@glondu.net) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=138.231.136.39;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="steph@glondu.net";
  x-sender="steph@glondu.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  postmaster@redisdead.crans.org designates 138.231.136.39 as
  permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=138.231.136.39;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="steph@glondu.net";
  x-sender="postmaster@redisdead.crans.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8AAP8tyVGK54gnmWdsb2JhbABAGoM6g06JZwSyRoEDFg4BAQEBAQYNCwcUKIIkAQUjVRELGgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUTCAKICgQIM6h4hj6LAYEmjjAWgjmBFAOTcYNSgSmEeI41
X-IPAS-Result: Ao8AAP8tyVGK54gnmWdsb2JhbABAGoM6g06JZwSyRoEDFg4BAQEBAQYNCwcUKIIkAQUjVRELGgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUTCAKICgQIM6h4hj6LAYEmjjAWgjmBFAOTcYNSgSmEeI41
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,934,1363129200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="23214977"
Received: from redisdead.crans.org ([138.231.136.39])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 25 Jun 2013 07:45:52 +0200
Received: from [10.125.1.2] (fbx.up7.fr [81.56.96.177])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by redisdead.crans.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D483D1FB2
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:45:51 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51C92E8E.4040901@glondu.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:45:50 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5lIEdsb25kdQ==?= <steph@glondu.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130518 Icedove/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <1372089559-sup-2177@nixos>
In-Reply-To: <1372089559-sup-2177@nixos>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
OpenPGP: id=49881AD3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocamlopt vs camlc, different behaviour - how to
 track down?

Le 24/06/2013 18:03, Marc Weber a =C3=A9crit :
> I'd like to find out why a ocamlc complied application behaves
> differently than a ocamlopt compiled one.

There are no guarantees on the evaluation order for some constructions,
I have already experienced differences between ocamlc and ocamlopt.
Looking at the bug tracker, we can find some reports about it:

  http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=3D2910
  http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=3D4072

--=20
St=C3=A9phane