caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Henri Dubois-Ferriere <henridf@lcavsun1.epfl.ch>
To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: [Caml-list] ocamldep  problem with .cmo vs .cmx
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:06:15 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208070141570.7524-100000@lcavpc19.epfl.ch> (raw)

Hi,

I have noticed that ocamldep fills in dependencies differently for a .cmo
than for a .cmx

Say my file main.ml does a "open mylib"

then ocamldep will produce the following dependencies:

main.cmo: mylib.cmi
(depends on *interface* of included module)
main.cmx: mylib.cmx
(depends on compiled *object code* of included module)

mylib.cmo: mylib.cmi
mylib.cmx: mylib.cmi

So, in the cmx case, we have the full dependency file so that a makefile
target like

main_opt: main.cmx
	$(OCAMLOPT) $(OBJ_FILES) ... ..

will follow all the dependencies and compile mylib.cmi and mylib.cmx
(assuming the right implicit rules etc).

whereas if we have a target for the bytecode version like:

main_bcode: main.cmo
	$(OCAMLC) $(BC_OBJ_FILES) ... ..

make will only compile mylib.cmi and not mylib.cmo, so one would have to
explicitly add mylib.cmo as a dependency of main_bcode. This is painful in
itself, on top of forcing bytecode and native rules to be different.

So the question is:
In the example above, why doesn't ocamldep output
main.cmo: mylib.cmo
instead of
main.cmo: mylib.cmi

? This would make .cmx and .cmo treatment consistent, as well as simplify
makefile writing.

thanks
henri

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


             reply	other threads:[~2002-08-07  0:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-08-07  0:06 Henri Dubois-Ferriere [this message]
2002-08-07 10:41 ` Alain Frisch

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.33.0208070141570.7524-100000@lcavpc19.epfl.ch \
    --to=henridf@lcavsun1.epfl.ch \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    --cc=henri.dubois-ferriere@epfl.ch \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).