On 16-10-2010, Guillaume Yziquel <[email protected]> wrote: > Le Sunday 17 Oct 2010 à 00:10:41 (+0200), Stéphane Glondu a écrit : >> Le 16/10/2010 23:24, Guillaume Yziquel a écrit : >> > Package: ocaml >> > Version: 3.12.0-1~38 >> > Severity: normal >> > >> > [...] and digging into >> > the callbacks.c file, I discovered that OCaml in Debian is not built >> > with the LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE macro enabled. >> >> Why should it be? > > To me, the question is "why shouldn't it be?". >
[...] >> > It seems to me that the current situation might be a can of worms and >> > segfaults, and I'm wondering whether it would not be a good idea to >> > build OCaml with LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE enabled. >> >> Where did you get that from? Is this LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE documented >> somewhere? The only usage I see is in byterun/callback.c, and I don't >> see why it should matter here (we are just using the standard bytecode >> interpreter). > > Haven't found documentation on LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE anywhere. I'm > stumbling on it doing painful gdb debugging. > > I do not think that the comments in callbacks.c are very enlightening as > to the proper usage of LOCAL_CALLBACK_BYTECODE. I'm not saying that it > should be changed, but I do not see why it should be kept this way. > The effect of this seems to be quite tricky and "maybe" not worth using a different set of options than the default OCaml one. Since, Debian packaging do nothing to disable this macro and that upstream doesn't enable it or even document it, I am not sure it is a good idea to change it in Debian. This doesn't mean that this is not a problem and that it doesn't cause segfault. I just think this issue should be dealt with upstream directly so that he can integrate in OCaml 3.12.1 a sane default for this option. Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
