From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 CA5C07F0AF for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:19:10 +0100 (CET) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:Aatu2BG3Qt89FC/p3ZvPBZ1GYnF86YWxBRYc798ds5kLTJ75rsuwAkXT6L1XgUPTWs2DsrQf27WQ4v2rADZYqb+681k8M7V0HycfjssXmwFySOWkMmbcaMDQUiohAc5ZX0Vk9XzoeWJcGcL5ekGA6ibqtW1aJBzzOEJPK/jvHcaK1oLsh7/0qsCYOl8QzBOGIppMbzyO5T3LsccXhYYwYo0Q8TDu5kVyRuJN2GlzLkiSlRuvru25/Zpk7jgC86l5r50IeezAcq85Vb1VCig9eyBwvZWz9Er1dhaU/nYXTkkRlxNJBUCFsEC7Dd/NtX7bqON7kAadIcroRrA1RS/qu6Z1RzfphSoKcTkj/zeEpNZ3ifd+qQii7yd/wojLbYWRfK57ZaPce8wXQW5pXM9XWjddGI6xc80ECO9XbrUQlJX0u1Zb9Uj2PgKrHu66j2IRiw== Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=mshinwell@janestreet.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=mshinwell@janestreet.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mxout1.mail.janestreet.com Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of mshinwell@janestreet.com) identity=pra; client-ip=38.105.200.112; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="mshinwell@janestreet.com"; x-sender="mshinwell@janestreet.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of mshinwell@janestreet.com designates 38.105.200.112 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=38.105.200.112; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="mshinwell@janestreet.com"; x-sender="mshinwell@janestreet.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mxout1.mail.janestreet.com) identity=helo; client-ip=38.105.200.112; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="mshinwell@janestreet.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mxout1.mail.janestreet.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BOAAA/ZeZWjnDIaSZDGoQYbQapbo9HdgENgW0jhWoCgR4HOBQBAQEBAQEBARABAQEBBxYJUIItghUBAQQSER0BASwLAQ8LCwMKAgIJCBUCAiISAQUBChIGExIQh20DEgMLLJ06gTE+MYpPZ4RBAQSFZgOETgEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBAQEBEQYKcoUchEKEOEGCQYE6hiUMkR+FboJzBYUagjCMVY0/ER6BDx4BAYI4HoFQagEBAYpgAQEB X-IPAS-Result: A0BOAAA/ZeZWjnDIaSZDGoQYbQapbo9HdgENgW0jhWoCgR4HOBQBAQEBAQEBARABAQEBBxYJUIItghUBAQQSER0BASwLAQ8LCwMKAgIJCBUCAiISAQUBChIGExIQh20DEgMLLJ06gTE+MYpPZ4RBAQSFZgOETgEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBAQEBEQYKcoUchEKEOEGCQYE6hiUMkR+FboJzBYUagjCMVY0/ER6BDx4BAYI4HoFQagEBAYpgAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,334,1454972400"; d="scan'208";a="207577444" Received: from mxout1.mail.janestreet.com ([38.105.200.112]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2016 08:19:09 +0100 Received: from tot-qpr-mailcore2.delacy.com ([172.27.56.106] helo=tot-qpr-mailcore2) by mxout1.mail.janestreet.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1afMmR-0003XQ-Uo for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 03:19:07 -0400 X-JS-Flow: external Received: by tot-qpr-mailcore2 with JS-mailcore (0.1) (envelope-from ) id BW5mXr-AAACkt-cY; 2016-03-14 03:19:07.909240-04:00 Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com ([209.85.218.42]) by mxgoog2.mail.janestreet.com with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1afMmR-000188-NA for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 03:19:07 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id d205so126745759oia.0 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:19:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=janestreet.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WwRQIaCogyg9ALQ6WISKgEpViV67rIxyK8blDhVNhZg=; b=x2L+Eve5guuLB/EwN0KdWP6tCEVWViEcd3uSrRaDmB+14IZjPtaXXVDyyF/C1lGIXQ Phf1kszOmxlVF0EajIywOd8Sk64Wb+SGAWdC+CQy0BL5ptstqgTVy8OvfXCBwtA1RED1 raFohSr5GPdjWxwpV7Ugtkz8Bctdkj2wS4De4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WwRQIaCogyg9ALQ6WISKgEpViV67rIxyK8blDhVNhZg=; b=SmT7/f08IeACI9ays/gWamaMkO9ae4wjJfmzEOD9GUrS5MmcZLx0B4a8IS2tbnxl3r u4exQMxP7kgNWGTl0sU4UI2N14nz6s6tJnAvkex8bBNlBlNFTcIiNAEB67Z13qY0oLAU 6nXqrp9cvhA8SGMKsckshDLOjGP8Q3HlpPzRurReVVv+NA2BsHJc3BlALwgj5ICWlkDg vQw8CXkfvCvD1oI6icRxsYExMibEcJk26SRka+txjn5Wjmm4s7ol9PXzkGqUoKuidVX0 tnc4BXVR0yizEHvfwWHyIIOXJ6v8r8ny7/lB/ByQJf5lBbauZ1pcD+dVZVUF+RTq1Luv qOeg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJINm76fpgmAGEhRhwP2FdQyCfufATGPUPLYOEQive67JNFxyQOJn16Se2q8HpXti6fMzdkIdLLnopKu8viTsNm07eLhZR2E6CtvBIk6uNyRf9/Mk7D/cABjY1aAAbnsdARDq+2uUJrtTtVp X-Received: by 10.202.64.132 with SMTP id n126mr12708861oia.80.1457939947261; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:19:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.64.132 with SMTP id n126mr12708853oia.80.1457939947105; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.216.214 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:19:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <30AF5A7CB977477A9BF094F3BC19C58C@erratique.ch> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 07:19:07 +0000 Message-ID: From:Mark Shinwell To:Ivan Gotovchits Cc:=?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?= , platform , OCaml List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JS-Processed-by: mailcore X-Validation-by: mshinwell@janestreet.com Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Package compilation and debug mode There is a performance penalty with -g: it makes the raising of exceptions slower (due to recording of backtraces). I think that may be the only difference at present, though I'm not completely sure. Mark On 13 March 2016 at 19:16, Ivan Gotovchits wrote: > It looks like, that currently the `-g` option has no performance cost at = all (correct me if I=E2=80=99m wrong). Presumably, there is some increase i= n the package size, but who cares. With these premises, I think it would be= a good policy to distribute packages with `-g` flag enabled. > >> On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:35 PM, Daniel B=C3=BCnzli wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I'd like to know what the consensus is about distributing packages that = always compile in debug mode. It seems that some persons do want to have de= bug always enabled [1,2], but the discussion is not clear cut [1]. >> >> By default all my packages are released with -g disabled. It seems easy = enough to have an opam switch (even the official one) that automatically en= ables the flag. >> >> So I think OCaml's opam repository should have a policy here. The answer= should also take system package managers into account since those pull dir= ectly from the tarballs (if this document [3] is still in use for debian it= seems they do require compilation with debug mode). >> >> Personally I don't have an opinion about it, I'm rather seeking an answe= r here. >> >> Best, >> >> Daniel >> >> [1] http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=3D6728 >> [2] http://rgrinberg.com/blog/2016/02/26/opam-package-checklist/ >> [3] http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/ocaml_packaging_policy.html= /c305.html#AEN307 >> >> >> >> -- >> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: >> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list >> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners >> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs